Formal Analysis of Responsibility Attribution in a Multimodal Framework

  • Daniela Glavaničová
  • Matteo PascucciEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11873)


The present article is devoted to a logical treatment of some fundamental concepts involved in responsibility attribution. We specify a theoretical framework based on a language of temporal deontic logic with agent-relative operators for deliberate causal contribution. The framework is endowed with a procedure to solve normative conflicts which arise from the assessment of different normative sources. We provide a characterization result for a basic system within this framework and illustrate how the concepts formalized can be put at work in the analysis of examples of legal reasoning.


Multi-agent deontic logic Legal reasoning Norm interpretation Responsibility 


Acknowledgements and Contribution

We are grateful to Olivier Roy, his group, and Timo Lang. Daniela Glavaničová was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract no. APVV-17-0057 and by the grant no. UK/414/2018. Matteo Pascucci was funded by the WWTF project MA16-028. The two authors equally contributed to the contents.


  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Makinson, D.: Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In: Hilpinen, R. (ed.) New Studies in Deontic Logic, vol. 152, pp. 125–148. Springer, Dordrecht (1981).
  2. 2.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Boissier, O., May, K.M., Micalizio, R., Tedeschi, S.: Accountability and responsibility in agent organizations. In: Miller, T., Oren, N., Sakurai, Y., Noda, I., Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Cao Son, T. (eds.) PRIMA 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11224, pp. 261–278. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braham, M., Van Hees, M.: Responsibility voids. Philos. Q. 61, 6–15 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braham, M., Van Hees, M.: An anatomy of moral responsibility. Mind 121, 601–634 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cane, P.: Responsibility in Law and Morality. Hart Publishing, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chromá, M.: Synonymy and polysemy in legal terminology and their applications to bilingual and bijural translation. Res. Lang. 9, 31–50 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, D.E.: Collective responsibility. Philosophy 43, 258–268 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Lima, T., Royakkers, L., Dignum, F.: A logic for reasoning about responsibility. Logic J. IGPL 18, 99–117 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Derakhshan, F., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Dynamic assignment of roles, rights and responsibilities in normative multi-agent systems. J. Logic Comput. 23(2), 355–372 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faroldi, F.L.G.: Deontic modals and hyperintensionality. Logic J. IGPL 27(4), 387–410 (2019)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frege, G.: Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik. 100, 25–50 (1892)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giordani, A.: Ability and responsibility in general action logic. In: Broersen, J., Condoravdi, C., Shyam, N., Pigozzi, G. (eds.) DEON 2018, pp. 121–138. College Publications, London (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goble, L.: Prima facie norms, normative conflicts, and dilemmas. In: Gabbay, D., Horty, J., Parent, X. (eds.) Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, pp. 241–351. College Publications, London (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hevelke, A., Nida-Rümelin, J.: Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: an ethical analysis. Sci. Eng. Ethics 21(3), 619–630 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lorini, E., Longin, D., Mayor, E.: A logical analysis of responsibility attribution: emotions, individuals and collectives. J. Logic Comput. 24, 1313–1339 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lorini, E., Sartor, G.: Influence and responsibility: a logical analysis. In: JURIX 2015, pp. 51–60 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oddie, G., Tichý, P.: The logic of ability, freedom and responsibility. Stud. Logica. 41, 227–248 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schane, S.: Ambiguity and misunderstanding in the law. Thomas Jefferson Law Rev. 25, 167–193 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sedlár, I.: Hyperintensional logics for everyone. Synthese, 1–24 (2019)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Benthem, J.: The Logic of Time. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and Methodology of SciencesComenius University in BratislavaBratislavaSlovakia
  2. 2.Institute of Logic and ComputationTU WienViennaAustria
  3. 3.Institute of PhilosophySlovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations