Value assessment and revision in legal interpretation

Abstract

The research aims at a formal denition of constructive interpretation in law as the dynamic of revision of theories about the normative system, embedding a model of balancing values [13] into an architecture of i/o logics representing conceptual, deontological and axiological rules [11]. We also introduce new revision operators which are relevant in the context of value assessments. CCS CONCEPTS• Computing methodologies → Nonmonotonic, default reasoning and belief revision; • Applied computing → Law;

Modelling Value-Oriented Legal Reasoning in LogiKEy

“…In line with current computational models combining these different modes of reasoning (e.g., Bench-Capon and Sartor [5], Maranhão and Sartor [27]), we argue that a discourse theory of law can consistently integrate them in the form of a multi-level system of legal reasoning. Legal rules or case precedents can thus be translated into (or analysed as) the balancing of plural and opposing (socio-legal) values on a deeper level of reasoning (Lomfeld [28]).…”

“…Fuenmayor [105] for a related encoding in Isabelle/HOL). In a similar vein, we think that some of the recent work that employs expressive deontic logics for value-based legal balancing (e.g., Maranhão and Sartor [27] and the references therein) can be fruitfully integrated in our approach. It is the pluralistic nature of LOGIKEY, realised within a dynamic modelling framework (e.g., Isabelle/HOL), that enables and supports such improvements without requiring expensive technical adjustments to the underlying base reasoning technology.…”

“…For our modelling purposes, it makes thus sense to consider a predicate Conflict on worlds (i.e., a proposition) signalling situations where value conflicts appear. Taking inspiration from the traditional logical principle of ex contradictio sequitur quodlibet, which we may intuitively paraphrase for the present purposes as ex conflictio sequitur quodlibet 27 , we define Conflict as the set of those worlds in which all basic values become applicable:…”

“…The work we present in this article is in fact the result of an iterative, give-and-take pro-310 It is worth noting that the application of our approach to deciding concrete legal cases reflects ideas in the AI and Law literature about understanding the solution of legal cases as theory construction, i.e., "building, evaluating and using theories" (Bench-Capon and Sartor [5], Maranhão and Sartor [27]) 5 . This multi-layered, iterative knowledge engineering process is supported in our LOGIKEY framework by adapting interactive and automated reasoning technology for HOL (as a meta-logic).…”