On How Kelsenian Jurisprudence and Intuitionistic Logic help to avoid Contrary-to-Duty paradoxes in Legal Ontologies

03/20/2018
by   Edward Hermann Haeusler, et al.
0

In this article we show how Hans Kelsen jurisprudence and Intuitionistic logic are used to avoid the well-known contrary-to-duty (CTD) paradoxes, such as Chisholm paradoxes and its variants. This article uses an intuitionistic version of the ALC description logic, named iALC, to show how an ontology based on individually valid legal statements is able to avoid CTDs by providing models to them.

READ FULL TEXT

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

research
10/09/2021

Dynamic Logic of Legal Competences

We propose a new formalization of legal competences, and in particular f...
research
10/23/2018

Automated Reasoning in Normative Detachment Structures with Ideal Conditions

Systems of deontic logic suffer either from being too expressive and the...
research
09/07/2022

Legal Detection of AI Products Based on Formal Argumentation and Legal Ontology

Ontology is a popular method for knowledge representation in different d...
research
12/08/2010

First steps in the logic-based assessment of post-composed phenotypic descriptions

In this paper we present a preliminary logic-based evaluation of the int...
research
06/23/2020

Encoding Legal Balancing: Automating an Abstract Ethico-Legal Value Ontology in Preference Logic

Enabling machines to legal balancing is a non-trivial task challenged by...
research
05/16/2023

Efficient Computation of General Modules for ALC Ontologies (Extended Version)

We present a method for extracting general modules for ontologies formul...
research
05/09/2023

The Perfect Victim: Computational Analysis of Judicial Attitudes towards Victims of Sexual Violence

We develop computational models to analyze court statements in order to ...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset