Strata of Intervenient Concepts in Normative Systems

  • Lars Lindahl
  • Jan Odelstad
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5076)


Writing a contract of a specific content is a ground for purchase, purchase is a ground for ownership, ownership is a ground for power to dispose. Also power to dispose is a consequence of ownership, ownership is a consequence of purchase. etc. The paper presents a continuation of the authors’ previous algebraic representation on ground - consequence chains in normative systems.The paper analyzes different kinds of “implicative closeness” between grounds and consequences in chains of legal concepts, in particular combinations of “weakest ground”, “strongest consequence” and “minimal joining”. The idea of a concept’s being intermediate between concepts of two different sorts is captured by the technical notion of “intervenient”, defined in terms of weakest ground and strongest consequence. A legal example concerning grounds and consequences of “ownership” and “trust” is used to illustrate the application of the formal theory.


Normative system Legal concept Intermediate concept Intervenient Weakest ground Strongest consequence Intervenient minimality Ownership 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aristotle.: The Nichomachean Ethics, transl. by Ross, W. D., Book V,
  2. 2.
    Grossi, D.: Designing Invisible Handcuffs. Formal Investigations in Institutions and Organizations for Multi-agent Systems. SIKS Dissertation Series No. 2007-16 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindahl, L.: Position and Change. A Study in Law and Logic. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindahl, L.: Deduction and Justification in the Law: The Role of Legal Terms and Concepts. Ratio Juris 17, 182–202 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindahl, L., Odelstad, J.: Intermediate Concepts as Couplings of Conceptual Structures. In: Prakken, H., McNamara, P. (eds.) Norms, Logics and Informations Systems. New Studies on Deontic Logic and Computer Science. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindahl, L., Odelstad, J.: An Algebraic Analysis of Normative Systems. Ratio Juris 13, 261–278 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindahl, L., Odelstad, J.: Normative Systems and Their Revision: An Algebraic Approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 81–104 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindahl, L., Odelstad, J.: Normative Positions within an Algebraic Approach to Normative Systems. Journal Of Applied Logic 2, 63–91 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindahl, L., Odelstad, J.: Intermediate Concepts in Normative Systems. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048. Springer, Heidelberg (2006a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindahl, L., Odelstad, J.: Open and Closed Intermediaries in Normative Systems. In: van Engers, T.M. (ed.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (Jurix 2006). IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006b)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindahl, L., Odelstad, J.: Intermediaries and Intervenients in Normative Systems. Journal of Applied Logic (June 29, 2007); (Article in Press, Corrected Proof), doi:10.1016/j.jal.2007.06.010Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Odelstad, J., Lindahl, L.: The Role of Connections as Minimal Norms in Normative Systems. In: Bench-Capon, T., Daskalopulu, A., Winkels, R. (eds.) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sartor, G.: The Nature of Legal Concepts: Inferential Nodes or Ontological Categories? EUI working paper LAW No. 2007/08. European University Institute. Department of Law (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Lindahl
    • 1
  • Jan Odelstad
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of LundSweden
  2. 2.1) Department of Mathematics, Natural and Computer Sciences, University of Gävle, Sweden, 2) DSV, KTHSweden

Personalised recommendations