Abstract :
[en] This paper investigates the practical reasoning involved in compliance-related decisions, distinguishing between two scenarios where a state of affairs is
evaluated in the light of applicable norms: ex post compliance checking and ex
ante compliance choices. While the literature in legal reasoning representation is
exclusively focused on compliance checking scenarios, i.e., simulating a digital
judge, different factors seem to play a role in the inner deliberation of compliance
choices. In this paper we investigate how human agents are influenced in their
compliance choices by their own value ranking and risk assessment and how, in
turn, the choice affects their preference among alternative interpretations of the
law. We contend that contributions from the literature such as the value-based
argumentation framework, while focused on ex post judgments, may be able to
provide a comprehensive framework for ex ante compliance decisions. The main
goal of the research behind this work is to achieve a comprehensive representation of legal reasoning that can be used as a reference for the explanation of
automated compliance decisions.
Funding text :
This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Luxembourg National Research
Fund (FNR), under grant number C24/IS/18894115/AGLAIA.
Scopus citations®
without self-citations
0