Retroactive Legal Changes and Revision Theory in Defeasible Logic

  • Antonino Rotolo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6181)

Abstract

In earlier works, we used Defeasible Logic to argue that techniques from belief and base revision encounter a number of difficulties in modelling legal dynamics. In particular, we showed that these techniques are not suitable when legal changes are retroactive. This suggested to adopt a different logical model able to express two main timelines, one internal to a given temporal version of the legal system, and another relative to how the legal system evolves over time. In this paper, we adjust our view and show that, under some restrictions, ideas from base revision, if applied to Defeasible Logic or to similar rule-based systems, can indeed capture some significant aspects of annulments, abrogations, and derogations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.: Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2(2), 255–287 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniou, G., Billington, D., Governatori, G., Maher, M.J.: Embedding defeasible logic into logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6, 703–735 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billington, D., Antoniou, G., Governatori, G., Maher, M.: Revising nonmonotonic belief sets: The case of defeasible logic. In: Burgard, W., Christaller, T., Cremers, A.B. (eds.) KI 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1701, pp. 101–112. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boella, L.v.d.T.G., Pigozzi, G.: A normative framework for norm change. In: Proc. AAMAS 2009. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Governatori, G., Palmirani, M., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Norm modifications in defeasible logic. In: Proc. JURIX 2005. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Governatori, G., Palmirani, M., Riveret, R., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Variants of temporal defeasible logic for modelling norm modifications. In: Proc. ICAIL 2007. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: Abrogation and annulment. Part I: Revision of defeasible theories. In: van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L. (eds.) DEON 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5076, pp. 3–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: Abrogation and annulment. Part II: Temporalised defeasible logic. In: Proc. NorMAS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: Legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. The Logic Journal of IGPL 18(1), 157–194 (2010)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonino Rotolo
    • 1
  1. 1.CIRSFID and Law SchoolUniversity of BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations