Skip to main content

From the Fundamental Legal Conceptions of Hohfeld to Legal Relations: Refining the Enrichment of Solely Deontic Legal Relations

  • Conference paper
Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems

Part of the book series: Workshops in Computing ((WORKSHOPS COMP.))

Abstract

The Hohfeldian fundamental legal conceptions that deal with solely deontic LEGAL RELATIONS, the duty/privilege and right/no-right pairs, require not only an adequate definition of agency for the person who is obligated or permitted to act, but also the same of patiency for the person to-or-for whom that action is directed. Person-i’s DUTY to see-to-it-that that state-of-affairs-s is so for the benefit of person-j is defined here in terms of a deontic OBLIGATION operation and DONE-BY (D2) and DONE-FOR (D4) relations between a state of affairs and persons. This paper is a refinement of the author’s earlier efforts to modify, extend, and enrich Hohfeld’s fundamental legal conceptions into a more general notion of LEGAL RELATIONS (defined concepts are expressed in all capital letters.) In particular, the agency concept of DONE-BY is being brought into closer conformity with Belnap’s emerging stit logic, with the modifications of deontic logic accompanying such changes. The S4–D2 action modal logic considered here is intended to be a part of the A-HOHFELD logic in which LEGAL RELATIONS are defined and from which a representation language called the A-HOHFELD language is derived. The A-HOHFELD language is being used as a representation language for constructing MINT (Multiple INTerpretation) interpretation-assistance systems for helping lawyers to detect alternative structural interpretations of sets of legal rules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, Alan Ross. Logic, norms, and roles. Ratio 1962; 4:36–49.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, Alan Ross. The logic of Hohfeldian propositions. U of Pittsburgh L Rev 1971; 33:28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fitch, Frederic B. A revision of Hohfeld’s theory of legal concepts. Logique et Analyse 1967; 10:269–76.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones, Andrew J.I. & Sergot, Marek. On the role of deontic logic in the characterization of normative systems. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON’91) 1991; Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jones, Andrew J.I. & Sergot, Marek. Formal specification of security requirements using the theory of normative positions. Proceedings of Esorics-92 1992; Toulouse.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kanger, Stig. New foundations for ethical theory. 1957; Stockholm. Reprinted in: Hilpinen R (ed) Deontic logic: introductory and systematic readings. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1970, pp. 36–58.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kanger, Stig. Law and logic. Theoria 1972; 38:105–32.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Kanger, Stig. On realization of human rights, in action, logic and social theory. Holmstron G & Jones A (ed) Acta Philosophica Fennica 1985; 38:71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lindahl, Lars. Position and change: a study in law and logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht-Holland/Boston-U.S.A., 1977.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Makinson, David. On the formal representation of rights relations. J of Philosophical Logic 1986; 15:403–25.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Thomson, Judith J. The realm of rights. Harvard Univrsity Press, Cambridge, Mass., London, England, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  12. Allen, Layman E. Formalizing Hohfeldian analysis to clarify the multiple senses of legal right’: a powerful lens for the electronic age. S Calif L Rev 1974; 48:428–87.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Allen, Layman E. Enriching the deontic fundamental legal conceptions of Hohfeld. To be published in Anniversary anthology in computers and law. Bing J & Torvund O (ed)., TANO-publ., Oslo, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Allen, Layman E. & Saxon, Charles S. Analysis of the logical structure of legal rules by a modernized and formalized version of Hohfeld’s fundamental legal conceptions. In: Martino A & Natali F (ed) Automated analysis of legal texts: logic, informatics, law, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986, pp 385–450.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Allen, Layman E. & Saxon, Charles S. A-Hohfeld: a language for robust structural representation of knowledge in the legal domain to build interpretation-assistance expert systems. In: Meyer JJ & Wieringa R (ed) Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993, 205–24.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Allen, Layman E. & Saxon, Charles S. Better language, better thought, better communication: the A-Hohfeld language for legal analysis. Forthcoming in the Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, May 21–24, 1995, University of Maryland, College Park, Md.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hohfeld, Wesley N. Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale L J 1913; 23:16–59. Reprinted with a new forward by Arthur L. Corbin, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Belnap, Nuel. Declaratives are not enough. Philosophical Studies 1990; 59:1–30.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Belnap, Nuel. Before refraining: concepts for agency. Erkenntnis 1991a; 34:137–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Belnap, Nuel. Backwards and forwards in the modal logic of agency. Li Philosophy & Phenomenological Res 1991b; 777–807.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Belnap, Nuel & Perloff, Michael. The way of the agent. Studia Logica 1992; 51:463–84.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Belnap, Nuel & Perloff, Michael. In the realm of agents. Annals of Mathematics & Artificial Intelligence 1993; 9:25–48.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Perloff, Michael. Stit and the language of agency. Synthese 1991; 86:379–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Allen, Layman E. & Saxon, Charles S. More IA needed in AI: interpretation assistance for coping with the problem of multiple structural interpretations. Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, June 25–28, 1991, St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, England, published In the Proceedings of the Conference by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Allen, Layman E. & Saxon, Charles S. Controlling inadvertent ambiguity in the logical structure of legal drafting by means of the prescribed definitions of the A-Hohfeld structural language. Theoria 1994; 9:135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Herrestadt, Henning & Krogh, Christen. The right direction. Verso un Sistema Esperto Giuridico Integrale, Firenze, 1993. (To be published in 1994.)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Herrestadt, Henning & Krogh, Christen (1995) Deontic logic relativised to bearers and counterparties. To be published in: Bing J & Torvund O (ed) Anniversary anthology in computers and law. TANO-publ., Oslo, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Horty, John F. & Belnap, Nuel. The deliberative stit: a study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. Forthcoming in J. of Philosophical Logic, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 British Computer Society

About this paper

Cite this paper

Allen, L.E. (1996). From the Fundamental Legal Conceptions of Hohfeld to Legal Relations: Refining the Enrichment of Solely Deontic Legal Relations. In: Brown, M.A., Carmo, J. (eds) Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Workshops in Computing. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-1488-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-1488-8_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-76015-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-1488-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics