Advertisement

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide a constraint satisfaction account of the doctrine of consistent interpretation developed by the European Court of Justice (now the Court of Justice of the EU) to protect effective and harmonious realization of the Communities’ aims. The doctrine can be naturally seen as pursuit for establishing coherence in initially incoherent set of propositions. I represent the doctrine in the framework of coherence-based model of legal argumentation (CMLA). An attempt to represent Marleasing case in this framework is discussed.

Keywords

consistent interpretation coherence constraint satisfaction European Court of Justice legal argumentation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Araszkiewicz, M.: Balancing of Legal Principles and Constraint Satisfaction. In: Winkels, R.C. (ed.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX), pp. 7–16. IOS, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thagard, P.: Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Craig, P., de Búrca, G.: EU Law. Text, Cases and Materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prinssen, J.L., Schrauwen, A. (eds.): Direct Effect. Rethinking a Classic of EC Legal Doctrine. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prechal, S.: Directives in EC Law. Oxford University Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Betlem, G.: The Doctrine of Consistent Interpretation. Managing Legal Uncertainty. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22, 397–418 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amaya, A.: Formal Models of Coherence and Legal Epistemology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15, 429–447 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amaya, A.: Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence. Ratio Juris 24, 304–329 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Joseph, S., Prakken, H.: Coherence-driven argumentation to norm consensus. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Barcelona, pp. 58–67. ACM Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hage, J.C.: Studies in Legal Logic. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sartor, G.: Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18, 175–215 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sartor, G.: Legal Reasoning. A Cognitive Approach to Law. A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, vol. 5. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dung, P.M., Sartor, G.: A Logical Model of Private International Law. In: Governatori, G., Sartor, G. (eds.) DEON 2010. LNCS, vol. 6181, pp. 229–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bengoetxea, J.: AI, Legal Theory and EC Law: A Mapping of the Main Problems. In: Bankowski, Z., White, I., Hahn, U. (eds.) Informatics and the Foundation of Legal Reasoning, pp. 291–310. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moral, L.: A Modest Notion of Coherence in Legal Reasoning. A Model for the European Court of Justice. Ratio Juris 16, 296–323 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MacCormick, N., Summers, R. (eds.): Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study. Dartmouth Publishing (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michał Araszkiewicz
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Law and Administration, Department of Legal TheoryJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations