[en] We present a rights-first model of contrary-to-duty (CTD) reasoning with two remedial regimes and a revision track. In the CTD-Claim regime, when a primary duty is not fulfilled and no exception applies, a remedial claim detaches automatically, without any recognition act. In the CTD-Power regime, a remedial claim arises only if the rights-holder exercises a recognition power; until then there is no recognised violation and no remedial duty. Revision-of-Duty (RoD) is an alternative discretionary power that adapts the primary duty without recognising a violation, keeping the purpose aligned and avoiding sanctions. Under CTD-Power, revision competes directly with recognition on the same case. We develop a model for agreements, give concise dynamic-logic-style specifications of guards and acts, implement an institutional rights system that executes these specifications over live Hohfeldian bundles (with per-case exclusivity, exception handling and provenance), and show how agentic AI can use reasons to choose among the admissible acts within the rights-first framework.
Disciplines :
Computer science
Author, co-author :
Dong, Huimin; TU Wien, Vienna, Austria
van der Torre, Leendert; University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg ; Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
YU, Liuwen ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine > Department of Computer Science > Team Réka MARKOVICH
External co-authors :
yes
Language :
English
Title :
Contrary-to-Duty Rights: From Hohfeld to Agreement Revision
Publication date :
02 December 2025
Main work title :
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications
Prakken H, Sergot M. Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica. 1996; 57 (1): 91-115.
van der Torre L, Tan YH. Contrary-to-duty reasoning with preference-based dyadic obligations. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. 1999; 27 (1): 49-78.
Hage J. Contrary to Duty Obligations A Study in Legal Ontology. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2001; 2001. p. 89-102.
Bench-Capon TJ. Transition systems for designing and reasoning about norms. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2015; 23 (4): 345-66.
Hohfeld WN. Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. Yale Law Journal. 1913; 23 (1): 16-59.
Chopra A, van der Torre L, Verhagen H, Villata S, editors. Handbook of Normative Multiagent Systems. College Publications; 2018.
Carmo J, Jones AJ. Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Handbook of Philosophical Logic: Volume 8. Springer; 2002. p. 265-343.
Hart HL. Discretion. Harvard Law Review. 2013; 127 (2): 652-65.
Gabbay D, Horty J, Parent X, van der Meyden R, van der Torre L, editors. Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. College Publications; 2013 (v. 1), 2021 (v. 2).
Harel D, Kozen D, Tiuryn J. Dynamic logic. MIT Press; 2000.
Markovich R. Understanding Hohfeld and formalizing legal rights: The Hohfeldian conceptions and their conditional consequences. Studia Logica. 2020; 108 (1): 129-58.
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T. Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence. 2007; 171 (10-15): 855-74.
Azzopardi S, Pace GJ, Schapachnik F, Schneider G. Contract automata: An operational view of contracts between interactive parties. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2016; 24 (3): 203-43.
Acharya DB, Kuppan K, Divya B. Agentic AI: Autonomous intelligence for complex goals-a comprehensive survey. IEEE Access. 2025.
Tucker C. The Weight of Reasons: A Framework for Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2025.
Ciabattoni A, Olivetti N, Parent X. Dyadic obligations: proofs and countermodels via hypersequents. In: Proceedings of PRIMA 2022. Springer; 2022. p. 54-71.
Governatori G, Rotolo A, Sartor G. Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic. In: Proceedings of ICAIL 2005; 2005. p. 25-34.
Meyer JJC, et al. A different approach to deontic logic: deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame J Formal Log. 1988; 29 (1): 109-36.
Bench-Capon TJM. Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation. 2003; 13 (3): 429-48.
Makinson D, Van Der Torre L. Constraints for input/output logics. Journal of philosophical logic. 2001; 30 (2): 155-85.
van Berkel K, Markovich R, Straßer C, van der Torre L. Arguing About Choosing a Normative System: Conflict of Laws. In: Sileno G, Spanakis J, van Dijck G, editors. Proceedings of JURIX 2023. vol. 379 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press; 2023. p. 73-82.
Dong H, Roy O. Dynamic logic of legal competences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information. 2021; 30 (4): 701-24.
Jones AJI, Sergot M. A Formal Characterisation of Institutionalised Power. Journal of the IGPL. 1996; 4 (3): 429-45.
Boella G, Pigozzi G, van der Torre L. Five Guidelines for Normative Multiagent Systems. In: Governatori G, editor. Proceedings of JURIX 2009. vol. 205 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press; 2009. p. 21-30.
Boella G, van der Torre L. Reasoning for Agreement Technologies. In: Raedt LD, Bessiere C, Dubois D, Doherty P, Frasconi P, Heintz F, et al., editors. Proceedings of ECAI 2012. vol. 242 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press; 2012. p. 895-6.
Boella G, van der Torre L. Constitutive Norms in the Design of Normative Multiagent Systems. In: Proceedings of CLIMA 2005. Springer; 2005. p. 303-19.
Amgoud L, Kaci S. On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of ArgMAS 2004. Springer; 2004. p. 192-207.
Liao B, Pardo P, Slavkovik M, van der Torre L. The Jiminy Advisor: Moral Agreements among Stakeholders Based on Norms and Argumentation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. 2023; 77: 737-92.
Boella G, Caire P, van der Torre L, Villata S. Dependence Networks for Agreement Technologies. In: Ossowski S, Toni F, Vouros GA, editors. Proceedings of AT 2012. vol. 918 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS. org; 2012. p. 109-10.
Marosin D, Proper HA, van der Torre L. Changing Agreements: Intention Reconsideration based on Assumptions and Reasons. In: Ossowski S, Toni F, Vouros GA, editors. Proceedings of AT 2012. vol. 918 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS. org; 2012. p. 262-3.
Zin MM, Satoh K, Borges G. Leveraging LLM for Identification and Extraction of Normative Statements. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2024. IOS Press; 2024. p. 215-25.
Billi M, Pisano G, Sanchi M. Fighting the knowledge representation bottleneck with Large Language Models. In: Proceedings of JURIX 2024. IOS Press; 2024. p. 14-24.
Pawar SS, Apte M, Palshikar GK, Ali B, Ramrakhiyani N. DRAssist: Dispute Resolution Assistance using Large Language Models. In: Proceedings ICAIL 2025. forthcoming. ACM; 2025.
Cabalar P, Ciabattoni A, van der Torre L. Deontic equilibrium logic with explicit negation. In: Proceedings of JELIA 2023; 2023. p. 498-514. Springer.
Dong H, Doder D, Li X, Markovich R, van der Torre L, van Zee M. Rights and Practical Reasoning in Deontic Logic. In: Proceedings of DEON 2023. College Publications; 2023. p. 1-19.
Yu L, Liga D, Markovich R. Addressing the Right to Explanation and the Right to Challenge through Hybrid-AI: Symbolic Constraints over Large Language Models via Prompt Engineering. In: Proceedings ICAIL 2025. forthcoming. ACM; 2025.
