More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Legal contractions: a logical analysis

Authors:

Guido Governatori,

Antonino Rotolo,

Francesco Olivieri,

Simone ScannapiecoAuthors Info & Claims

ICAIL '13: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Pages 63 - 72

https://doi.org/10.1145/2514601.2514609

Published: 10 June 2013 Publication History

Abstract

This paper systematically investigates how to model legal contraction in an expressive variant of Defeasible Deontic Logic. We argue that legal contraction is an umbrella concept that includes operations which are conceptually and technically different: removing rules, adding exceptions, and modifying rule priorities. The peculiarities of deleting legal conclusions show that an extension of those operations is sometimes needed, which works on the indirect conclusions from which the target effect of the contraction is obtained. The proposed techniques are discussed in the context of a new version for the logic of AGM postulates of contraction.

References

[1]

C. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:510--530, 1985.

[2]

C. E. Alchourrón and E. Bulygin. The expressive conception of norms. In R. Hilpinen, editor, New Studies in Deontic Logic, pages 95--125. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981.

[3]

C. E. Alchourrón and D. C. Makinson. Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In R. Hilpinen, editor, New Studies in Deontic Logic, pages 125--148. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981.

[4]

C. E. Alchourrón and D. C. Makinson. The logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria, 48:14--37, 1982.

[5]

G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori, M. J. Maher, and A. Rock. A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In ECAI 2000, pages 459--463, 2000.

[6]

G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori, and M. J. Maher. Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2(2):255--287, 2001.

Digital Library

[7]

G. Boella, G. Pigozzi, and L. van der Torre. A normative framework for norm change. In Proc. AAMAS 2009, pages 169--176. ACM, 2009.

Digital Library

[8]

P. Di Giusto and G. Governatori. A new approach to base revision. In P. Barahona and J. J. Alferes, editors, EPIA 1999, number 1695 in LNAI, pages 327--341, Berlin, 1999. Springer.

Digital Library

[9]

D. M. Gabbay, G. Pigozzi, and J. Woods. Controlled revision - an algorithmic approach for belief revision. J. Log. Comput., 13(1):3--22, 2003.

[10]

G. Governatori and A. Rotolo. A computational framework for institutional agency. Artif. Intell. Law, 16(1):25--52, 2008.

Digital Library

[11]

G. Governatori and A. Rotolo. BIO logical agents: Norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 17(1):36--69, 2008.

Digital Library

[12]

G. Governatori and A. Rotolo. Changing legal systems: Legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. Logic Journal of IGPL, 18(1):157--194, 2010.

[13]

G. Governatori, M. Palmirani, R. Riveret, A. Rotolo, and G. Sartor. Norm modifications in defeasible logic. In JURIX 2005, pages 13--22. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2005.

Digital Library

[14]

G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, R. Riveret, M. Palmirani, and G. Sartor. Variants of temporal defeasible logic for modelling norm modifications. In Proc. ICAIL'07, pages 155--159, 2007.

Digital Library

[15]

G. Governatori, V. Padmanabhan, A. Rotolo, and A. Sattar. A defeasible logic for modelling policy-based intentions and motivational attitudes. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 17(3):227--265, 2009.

[16]

G. Governatori, F. Olivieri, S. Scannapieco, and M. Cristani. Designing for compliance: Norms and goals. In F. Olken, M. Palmirani, and D. Sottara, editors, RuleML 2011 America, volume 7018 of LNCS, pages 282--297. Springer, 2011.

Digital Library

[17]

G. Governatori, F. Olivieri, S. Scannapieco, and M. Cristani. Revision of defeasible logic preferences. CoRR, 1206.5833, 2012.

[18]

D. Grossi and A. Rotolo. Logic in the law: A concise overview. In A. Gupta and J. van Benthem, editors, Logic and Philosophy Today. College Publications, 2011.

[19]

H. L. A. Hart. The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994.

[20]

H. Kelsen. General theory of norms. Clarendon, Oxford, 1991.

[21]

H.-P. Lam and G. Governatori. What are the necessity rules in defeasible reasoning. In J. Delgrande and W. Faber, editors, LPNMR 2011, volume 6645 of LNCS, pages 187--192, Berlin, 2011. Springer.

Digital Library

[22]

J. Maranhão. Refinement. a tool to deal with inconsistencies. In ICAIL 2001, pages 52--59, 2001.

Digital Library

[23]

A. Rotolo. Retroactive legal changes and revision theory in defeasible logic. In G. Governatori and G. Sartor, editors, DEON 2010, volume 6181 of LNAI, pages 116--131. Springer, 2010.

Digital Library

[24]

J. R. Searle. The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press, New York, 1996.

[25]

A. Stolpe. Norm-system revision: theory and application. Artif. Intell. Law, 18(3):247--283, 2010.

Digital Library

[26]

G. von Wright. Norm and action: A logical inquiry. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.

[27]

G. R. Wheeler and M. Alberti. No revision and no contraction. Minds and Machines, 21(3):411--430, 2011.

Digital Library

Cited By

Moguillansky MMartinez DTamargo LRotolo A(2024)An approach to temporalised legal revision through addition of literalsArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-023-09363-w32:3(621-666)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10506-023-09363-w
Pomarlan MHedblom MSpillner LPorzel R(2024)Revising Defeasible Theories via InstructionsRules and Reasoning10.1007/978-3-031-72407-7_13(176-190)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-72407-7_13
Moguillansky MTamargo L(2020)On argument acceptability change towards legal interpretation dynamicsArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-020-09277-xOnline publication date: 10-Oct-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09277-x
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Legal contractions: a logical analysis
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
      1. Nonmonotonic, default reasoning and belief revision

Recommendations

An approach to temporalised legal revision through addition of literals
Abstract
As lawmakers produce norms, the underlying normative system is affected showing the intrinsic dynamism of law. Through undertaken actions of legal change, the normative system is continuously modified. In a usual legislative practice, the time for ...
Deontic Relevant Logic as the Logical Basis for Representing and Reasoning about Legal Knowledge in Legal Information Systems
KES '08: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, Part II

To represent and reason about various laws, legal rules, and precedents in legal information systems, we need a right fundamental logic system to provide us with a logical validity criterion of legal reasoning as well as a formal representation ...
Legal stories and the process of proof

In this paper, we continue our research on a hybrid narrative-argumentative approach to evidential reasoning in the law by showing the interaction between factual reasoning (providing a proof for `what happened' in a case) and legal reasoning (making a ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

ICAIL '13: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

June 2013

277 pages

ISBN:9781450320801

DOI:10.1145/2514601

Conference Chair:
Enrico Francesconi
Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques - ITTIG-CNR Florence, Italy
,
Program Chair:
Bart Verheij
Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Engineering, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Copyright © 2013 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

ITTIG-CNR: Istituto di Teoria e Tecniche dell'Informazione Giuridica - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
IAAIL: Intl Asso for Artifical Intel & Law

In-Cooperation

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 June 2013

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Australian Government

Conference

ICAIL '13

Sponsor:

ITTIG-CNR
IAAIL

ICAIL '13: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

June 10 - 14, 2013

Rome, Italy

Acceptance Rates

ICAIL '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 17 of 53 submissions, 32%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

13
Total Citations
View Citations
147
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)15
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

Reflects downloads up to 15 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Moguillansky MMartinez DTamargo LRotolo A(2024)An approach to temporalised legal revision through addition of literalsArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-023-09363-w32:3(621-666)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10506-023-09363-w
Pomarlan MHedblom MSpillner LPorzel R(2024)Revising Defeasible Theories via InstructionsRules and Reasoning10.1007/978-3-031-72407-7_13(176-190)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-72407-7_13
Moguillansky MTamargo L(2020)On argument acceptability change towards legal interpretation dynamicsArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-020-09277-xOnline publication date: 10-Oct-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09277-x
Governatori GRotolo ARiveret RVillata S(2019)Modelling Dialogues for Optimal LegislationProceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/3322640.3326731(229-233)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3322640.3326731
Tamargo LMartinez DRotolo AGovernatori G(2019)An axiomatic characterization of temporalised belief revision in the lawArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-019-09241-4Online publication date: 10-Jan-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-019-09241-4
Boella GPigozzi GTorre L(2018)AGM Contraction and Revision of RulesJournal of Logic, Language and Information10.1007/s10849-016-9244-925:3-4(273-297)Online publication date: 24-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10849-016-9244-9
Arisaka R(2017)A Belief Revision Technique to Model Civil Code UpdatesNew Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-319-50953-2_15(204-216)Online publication date: 12-Apr-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50953-2_15
Sunkle SKholkar DKulkarni VLethbridge T(2015)Model-driven regulatory complianceProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems10.5555/3351736.3351788(436-445)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3351736.3351788
Sunkle SKholkar DKulkarni V(2015)Model-driven regulatory compliance: A case study of “Know Your Customer” regulations2015 ACM/IEEE 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS)10.1109/MODELS.2015.7338275(436-445)Online publication date: Sep-2015
https://doi.org/10.1109/MODELS.2015.7338275
da Silva VZahn J(2014)Normative Conflicts that Depend on the DomainCoordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems IX10.1007/978-3-319-14220-3_17(311-326)Online publication date: 4-Jun-2014
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14220-3_17
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents