Journals

Preface

Preface

  • Content Type Journal Article
  • Category Preface
  • DOI 10.1007/s10506-007-9053-1
  • Authors
    • Jos Lehmann, Italian National Research Council Laboratory for Applied Ontology, Institute of Cognitive Science and Technology Rome Italy Rome Italy
    • Maria Angela Biasiotti, Italian National Research Council Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques Florence Italy Florence Italy
    • Enrico Francesconi, Italian National Research Council Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques Florence Italy Florence Italy
    • Maria Teresa Sagri, Italian National Research Council Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques Florence Italy Florence Italy
May 31st, 2007 | Category: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Leave a comment

Formal models of coherence and legal epistemology

Abstract  This paper argues that formal models of coherence are useful for constructing a legal epistemology. Two main formal approaches
to coherence are examined: coherence-based models of belief revision and the theory of coherence as constraint satisfaction.
It is shown that these approaches shed light on central aspects of a coherentist legal epistemology, such as the concept of
coherence, the dynamics of coherentist justification in law, and the mechanisms whereby coherence may be built in the course
of legal decision-making.

  • Content Type Journal Article
  • Category Original Paper
  • DOI 10.1007/s10506-007-9050-4
  • Authors
    • Amalia Amaya, Harvard University Harvard Law School 1557 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02138 USA
May 17th, 2007 | Category: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Leave a comment


An interpretation of probability in the law of evidence based on pro-et-contra argumentation

Abstract  The purpose of this paper is to improve on the logical and measure-theoretic foundations for the notion of probability in
the law of evidence, which were given in my contributions �qvist [ (1990) Logical analysis of epistemic modality: an explication
of the Bolding–Ekel�f degrees of evidential strength. In: Klami HT (ed) R�tt och Sanning (Law and Truth. A symposium on legal
proof-theory in Uppsala May 1989). Iustus F�rlag, Uppsala, pp 43–54; (1992) Towards a logical theory of legal evidence: semantic
analysis of the Bolding–Ekel�f degrees of evidential strength. In: Martino AA (ed) Expert systems in law. Elsevier Science
Publishers BV, Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 67–86]. The present approach agrees with the one adopted in those contributions
in taking its main task to be that of providing a semantic analysis, or explication, of the so called Bolding–Ekel�f degrees
of evidential strength (“proof-strength”) as applied to the establishment of matters of fact in law-courts. However, it differs
from the one advocated in our earlier work on the subject in explicitly appealing to what is known as “Pro-et-Contra Argumentation”,
after the famous Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. It tries to bring out the logical form of that interesting kind of reasoning,
at least in the context of the law of evidence. The formal techniques used here will be seen to be largely inspired by the
important work done by Patrick Suppes, notably Suppes [(1957) Introduction to logic. van Nostrand, Princeton and (1972) Finite
equal-interval measurement structures. Theoria 38:45–63].

  • Content Type Journal Article
  • Category Original Paper
  • DOI 10.1007/s10506-007-9048-y
  • Authors
    • Lennart Åqvist, Uppsala University Department of Law Gamla Torget 6 Uppsala 751 20 Sweden
May 16th, 2007 | Category: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Leave a comment

Normative-informational positions: a modal-logical approach

Abstract  This paper is a preliminary investigation into the application of the formal-logical theory of normative positions to the
characterisation of normative-informational positions, pertaining to rules that are meant to regulate the supply of information. First, we present the proposed framework. Next,
we identify the kinds of nuances and distinctions that can be articulated in such a logical framework. Finally, we show how
such nuances can arise in specific regulations. Reference is made to Data Protection Law and Contract Law, among others. The
proposed approach is articulated around two essential steps. The first involves identifying the set of possible interpretations
that can be given to a particular norm. This is done by using formal methods. The second involves picking out one of these
interpretations as the most likely one. This second step can be resolved only by using further information (e.g., the context
or other parts of the regulation).

  • Content Type Journal Article
  • Category Original Paper
  • DOI 10.1007/s10506-007-9045-1
  • Authors
    • Andrew J. I. Jones, King’s College London Department of Computer Science The Strand London WC2R 2LS UK
    • Xavier Parent, 54 av de l’Elisa F-83100 Toulon France
May 16th, 2007 | Category: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Leave a comment

Judicial Diplomacy: The Role of the Supreme Courts in Mercosur Legal Integration

The author explains and presents examples of cross-border judicial diplomacy among Mercosur member [...]

May 15th, 2007 | Category: Harvard ILJ | Leave a comment


DARES: Documents annotation and recombining system—Application to the European law

Abstract  Accessing legislation via the Internet is more and more frequent. As a result, systems that allow consultation of law texts
are becoming more and more powerful. This paper presents DARES, a generic system which can be adapted to any domain to handle
documents production needs. It is based on an annotation engine which allows obtaining XML documents inputs as required by
the system, and on an XML fragments recombining system. The latter operates using a fragment manipulation functions toolbox
to generate new documents. To validate this system, we have tried to apply it to the domain of law through the consolidation
problem.

  • Content Type Journal Article
  • DOI 10.1007/s10506-007-9031-7
  • Authors
    • Fady Farah, Laboratoire du Génie de la Conception (LGeCo) INSA Strasbourg 24, Boulevard de la Victoire 67084 Strasbourg Cedex France 24, Boulevard de la Victoire 67084 Strasbourg Cedex France
    • François Rousselot, Laboratoire du Génie de la Conception (LGeCo) INSA Strasbourg 24, Boulevard de la Victoire 67084 Strasbourg Cedex France 24, Boulevard de la Victoire 67084 Strasbourg Cedex France
May 8th, 2007 | Category: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Leave a comment