conflict of laws; deontic logic; formal argumentation; forum shopping; input/output logic; proof theory; renvoi; Conflict of law; Deontic Logic; Formal argumentation; Formal modeling; Forum shopping; Input/output logic; Legal action; Normative system; Proof theory; Renvoi; Artificial Intelligence
Abstract :
[en] This paper presents a formal model of specific reasoning patterns in conflict of laws (CoL). CoL arises when multiple countries have jurisdiction due to the diverse nationalities of the involved factors. When initiating legal action in one country, the question of which country's substantial law to apply emerges, possibly involving the CoL regulations of other countries (in cases of transmission and renvoi). Moreover, parties contemplating legal action in a case falling under CoL often engage in a deliberation process known as forum shopping: determining which country's CoL regulations would result in the most favorable outcome for them. Our model integrates deontic logic (specifically Input/Output logic) with proof theory and formal argumentation techniques to model both types of reasoning.
Disciplines :
Computer science
Author, co-author :
Van Berkel, Kees; Ruhr University Bochum, Germany
Markovich, Réka; University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Strasser, Christian; Ruhr University Bochum, Germany
VAN DER TORRE, Leon ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine (FSTM) > Department of Computer Science (DCS)
External co-authors :
yes
Language :
English
Title :
Arguing About Choosing a Normative System: Conflict of Laws
Publication date :
07 December 2023
Event name :
JURIX 2023: 36th Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems
Event place :
Maastricht, Nld
Event date :
18-12-2023 => 20-12-2023
Main work title :
Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2023: 36th Annual Conference
1Corresponding Author: Kees van Berkel, e-mail: kees.vanberkel@ruhr-uni-bochum.de. This work was supported by the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg through the project Deontic Logic for Epistemic Rights (OPEN O20/14776480) and through the project INDIGO which is financially supported by the NORFACE Joint Research Programme on Democratic Governance in a Turbulent Age and co-funded by AEI, AKA, DFG and FNR, and the European Commission through H2020 (agreement No 822166). 2The lex fori is the law of the forum/jurisdiction where a legal action is being heard and decided.
Markovich R. On the Formal Structure of Rules in Conflict of Laws. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX. IOS press; 2019. p. 199-204.
Dung PM, Sartor G. The Modular Logic of Private International Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2011;19(2-3):233-61.
Malerba A, Rotolo A, Governatori G. A Logic for the Interpretation of Private International Law. In: New Developments in Legal Reasoning and Logic: From Ancient Law to Modern Legal Systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 149-69.
Makinson D, van der Torre L. Constraints for Input/Output Logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 2001;30(2):155-85.
van Berkel K, Straßer C. Reasoning With and About Norms in Logical Argumentation. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications: COMMA2022. IOS press; 2022. p. 332 343.
Dung PM. On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence. 1995;77:321-58.
Baldoni M, Giordano L, Satoh K, et al. Renvoi in Private International Law: A Formalization with Modal Contexts. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX). IOS Press; 2019. p. 157-62.
Troelstra AS, Schwichtenberg H. Basic proof theory. 43. Cambridge University Press; 2000.
Arieli O, Straßer C. Sequent-Based Logical Argumentation. Argument and Computation. 2015:73-99.
Prakken H. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation. 2010;1(2):93-124.
Cayrol C, Lagasquie-Schiex MC. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty: ECSQARU. Springer; 2005. p. 378-89.
Liao B, Slavkovik M, van der Torre L. The Jiminy Advisor: Moral Agreements Among Stakeholders Based on Norms and Argumentation. arXiv. 2022. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1812. 04741.
Rotolo A, Governatori G, Sartor G. Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation: two options for modelling interpretive arguments. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law; 2015. p. 99-108.
Pardo P, Straßer C. Modular orders on defaults in formal argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation. 2022.
da Costa Pereira C, Tettamanzi AG, Villata S, Liao B, Malerba A, Rotolo A, et al. Handling norms in multi-agent system by means of formal argumentation. IfCoLoG. 2017;4(9):1-35.
Governatori G, Olivieri F, Rotolo A, Sattar A, Cristani M. Computing Private International Law. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX). IOS Press; 2021. p. 181-90.
