Abstract
This paper studies how legal choices, and in particular legislative determinations, need to consider multiple rights and values,
and can be assessed accordingly. First it is argued that legal norms (and in particular constitutional right-norms) often
prescribe the pursuit of goals, which may be in conflict one with another. Then a model of teleological reasoning is brought
to bear on choices affecting different goals, among which those prescribed by constitutional norms. An analytical framework
is provided for evaluating such choices with regard to possible alternatives. The assessment of legislative choices according
to proportionality is then considered, and is modelled using the provided analytical framework. Finally, the framework is
expanded to include the ideas of reasonableness and institutional deference, and the corresponding margins of appreciation.
and can be assessed accordingly. First it is argued that legal norms (and in particular constitutional right-norms) often
prescribe the pursuit of goals, which may be in conflict one with another. Then a model of teleological reasoning is brought
to bear on choices affecting different goals, among which those prescribed by constitutional norms. An analytical framework
is provided for evaluating such choices with regard to possible alternatives. The assessment of legislative choices according
to proportionality is then considered, and is modelled using the provided analytical framework. Finally, the framework is
expanded to include the ideas of reasonableness and institutional deference, and the corresponding margins of appreciation.
- Content Type Journal Article
- Pages 175-215
- DOI 10.1007/s10506-010-9095-7
- Authors
- Giovanni Sartor, Law Department Villa Schifanoia, European University Institute, Via Boccaccio 121, 50133 Florence, Italy
- Journal Artificial Intelligence and Law
- Online ISSN 1572-8382
- Print ISSN 0924-8463
- Journal Volume Volume 18
- Journal Issue Volume 18, Number 2
