Formalising multiple interpretations of law as metalogic programs

Abstract A representation of legal reasoning is presented, which can be formalised as programs in a metalogic programming language. The representation accommodates multiple interpretations of legal concepts, conforming to an established hierarchical model of law. The representation is based on a one‐to‐one correspondence between levels of legal knowledge and levels of metaprogramming in logic. The legal interpretation process begins by abstracting legal sources as constrained rule schemata belonging to distinct levels in the hierarchy. The schemata can subsequently be concretised as rules that are applicable for a case at hand, provided that the specialisations are shown to satisfy the constraints. This process is performed by rules belonging to the next higher level in the hierarchy, obtained from schemata at the next level, and so on. We exemplify our model with representations of analogia legis as well as ‘normal’ interpretations of legal sources. An example from Swedish commercial law is given as a pr...

[1]  Gaetano Aurelio Lanzarone,et al.  A Metalogic Programming Language , 1989, ICLP.

[2]  Robert A. Kowalski,et al.  The treatment of negation in logic programs for representing legislation , 1989, ICAIL '89.

[3]  Robert S. Summers,et al.  Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study , 1991 .

[4]  Marek Sergot,et al.  The Use of Logical Models in Legal Problem Solving , 1990 .

[5]  C. I. Lewis,et al.  The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics , 1944 .

[6]  Tom Routen.  Hierarchically organised formalisations , 1989, ICAIL '89.

[7]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  N-Prolog: An Extension of Prolog with Hypothetical Implications I , 1984, J. Log. Program..

[8]  Robert A. Kowalski,et al.  Problems and Promises of Computational Logic , 1990 .

[9]  Jonas Barklund,et al.  Hierarchical Representation of Legal Knowledge with Metaprogramming in Logic , 1994, J. Log. Program..

[10]  Robert A. Kowalski,et al.  Logic for problem solving , 1982, The computer science library : Artificial intelligence series.

[11]  J. Kemp,et al.  The Concept of Law. , 1962 .

[12]  S. C. Kleene,et al.  Introduction to Metamathematics , 1952 .

[13]  Marek Sergot.  CHAPTER 1 – THE REPRESENTATION OF LAW IN COMPUTER PROGRAMS , 1991 .

[14]  Andreas Hamfelt,et al.  A Semiformal Metatheory for Fragmentary and Multilayered Knowledge as an Interactive Metalogic Program , 1992, FGCS.

[15]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Logic Programs with Classical Negation , 1990, ICLP.

[16]  J. C. Gray.  The nature and sources of the law , 1921 .

[17]  Layman E. Allen,et al.  More IA needed in AI: interpretation assistance for coping with the problem of multiple structural interpretations , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[18]  Hans Kelsen,et al.  On The Pure Theory of Law , 1966, Israel Law Review.

[19]  Andreas Hamfelt,et al.  Representation of Fragmentary Multilayered Knowledge , 1992, META.

[20]  Keith L. Clark,et al.  Negation as Failure , 1987, Logic and Data Bases.

[21]  Joseph R. Shoenfield,et al.  Mathematical logic , 1967 .

[22]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  The British Nationality Act as a logic program , 1986, CACM.

[23]  Gaetano Aurelio Lanzarone,et al.  Reflection through Constraint Satisfaction , 1994, ICLP.