Abstract
In conformity with the global tendency, balancing is increasingly used in judicial practice as an argumentation technique for solving legal disputes; more and more, judges of all levels ground their decisions on the balancing of individual rights, interests, principles, needs, and values. Legal science has formulated theoretical and formal models to explain the argumentative structure of balancing and the criteria governing the argumentation process, but, in the absence of a conceptual model that encompasses all elements in play and enables a comparative mechanism to be abstracted, mapping instances of judicial practice to abstract theories is still difficult. In this context, the goal of the project here described is to allow the logic of judicial practice emerge from cases, verifying from the bottom up the assumptions of theoretical models. Starting off from a broad analysis of Italian cases, the paper aims at analysing the object of this operation, that is, what is ’balanced’ and what is the nature of this process. The research was conducted by analysing the so-called ’massime’ (case law abstracts) of the Italian High Courts (Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, Council of State), of the administrative courts (Regional Administrative Tribunals) and of a selection of lower court decisions. The methodology is divided into an initial phase of documentary collection and storage, a second phase of conceptual modelling and a third phase of data analysis.
Keywords
- Reasonableness and proportionality in legal decisions
- Forensic statistic
- Legal conceptual modeling
- Legal data management
This paper is a revised and extended version of : Balancing rights and values in the Italian Courts: a statistical and conceptual analysis, published in: Law, Probability & Risk, Special Issue: Proportionality and Quantitative Justice, 10(3): 265-275 (2011).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alexy, R.: The theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1989)
Alexy, R.: Constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)
Araszkiewicz, M.: Analogy, Similarity and Factors. In: 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL, pp. 101–105. ACM, New York (2011)
Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., Visser, W.: Argument schemes for two-phase democratic deliberation. In: 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL, pp. 21–30. ACM, New York (2011)
Bench-Capon, T., Sartor, G.: A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. AI&Law J. 150, 97–142 (2003)
Bin, R.: Diritti ed Argomenti, Il bilanciamento degli interessi nella Giurisprudenza costituzionale. Giuffrè, Milano (1992)
Grabmair, M., Ashley, K.D.: Facilitating Case Comparison Using Value Judgements and Intermediate Legal Concepts. In: Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2011, pp. 161–170. ACM, New York (2011)
Hicks, J.: The Foundations of Welfare Economics. The Economic Journal 49(196), 696–712 (1939), http://jstor.org/stable/2225023
Kaldor, N.: Welfare Propositions in Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. The Economic Journal 49(195), 549–552 (1939), http://jstor.org/stable/2224835
Modugno, F.: Voce Principi generali del Bilanciamento. In: Enciclopedia del Diritto, vol. V, pp. 1–24. Giuffrè, Milano (2001)
Modugno, F.: voce Principi fondamentali, generali, supremi. In: Cassese, S. (ed.) Dizionario di Diritto Pubblico, vol. V, pp. 4490–4496. Giuffrè, Milano (2006)
Peczenik, A.: On law and Reason, vol. 81. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1989, 2008)
Pino, G.: Teoria e pratica del bilanciamento: tra libertà di manifestazione del pensiero e tutela dell’identità personale. Riv. Danno e Responsabilità, 577–584 (2003)
Prakken, H.: A exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. In: Prakken, H., Winkels, R. (eds.) 13th Jurix Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pp. 49–57. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2000)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4, pp. 219–318 (2002)
Damele, G., Dogliani, M., Mastropaolo, A., Pallante, F., Radicioni, D.: On Legal Argumentation Techniques: Towards a systematic approach. In: Biasiotti, M., Faro, S. (eds.) From Information to Knowledge - Online Access to Legal Information: Methodologies, Trends and Perspectives. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 236, pp. 105–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Rawls, J.: A theory of justice (revised edn.). Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)
Sartor, G.: A sufficientist Approach to Reasonableness in Legal Decision Making and Judicial Review. In: Bongiovanni, G., Sartor, G., Valentini, C. (eds.) Reasonableness and Law, pp. 17–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Sartor, G.: Doing justice to rights and value: teleological reasoning and proportionality. AI&Law J. 177, 175–215 (2010)
Scaccia, G.: Gli “strumenti” della ragionevolezza nel giudizio costituzionale. Giuffrè, Milano (2000)
Tarello, G.: L’ interpretazione della legge. Giuffrè, Milano (1980)
Wyner, A., Hoekstra, R.: A Legal Case OWL Ontology with an Instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi. Knowledge Engineering Review (in press, 2012)
Zoonil, Y.: Das Gebot der Verhältnismäßigkeit in der grundrechtlichen Argumentation. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Agnoloni, T., Sagri, MT., Tiscornia, D. (2012). Balancing Rights and Values in the Italian Courts: A Benchmark for a Quantitative Analysis. In: Palmirani, M., Pagallo, U., Casanovas, P., Sartor, G. (eds) AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems. Models and Ethical Challenges for Legal Systems, Legal Language and Legal Ontologies, Argumentation and Software Agents. AICOL 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7639. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35731-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35731-2_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35730-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35731-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
