Skip to main content

Value-Based Argumentation for Justifying Compliance

  • Conference paper
Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON 2010)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6181))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Compliance is often achieved ‘by design’ through a coherent system of controls consisting of information systems and procedures . This system-based control requires a new approach to auditing in which companies must demonstrate to the regulator that they are ‘in control’. They must determine the relevance of a regulation for their business, justify which set of control measures they have taken to comply with it, and demonstrate that the control measures are operationally effective. In this paper we show how value-based argumentation theory can be applied to the compliance domain. Corporate values motivate the selection of control measures (actions) which aim to fulfill control objectives, i.e. adopted norms (goals). In particular, we show how to formalize the dialogue in which companies justify their compliance decisions to regulators using value-based argumentation. The approach is illustrated by a case study of the safety and security measures adopted in the context of EU customs regulation.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artificial Intelligence 171, 855–874 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2), 157–206 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Ayres, I., Braithwaite, J.: Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burgemeestre, B., Hulstijn, J., Tan, Y.-H.: Rule-based versus principle-based regulatory compliance. In: Governatori, G. (ed.) Proceedings of JURIX 2009, pp. 37–46. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Burgemeestre, B., Hulstijn, J., Tan, Y.-H.: Towards an architecture for self-regulating agents: a case study in international trade. In: Polleres, A., Padget, J. (eds.) Proceedings of COIN@MALLOW (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burgemeestre, B., Hulstijn, J., Tan, Y.-H.: Norm emergence in regulatory compliance. In: Padget, J. (ed.) Proceedings of Normas 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. COSO. Internal control – integrated framework (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  8. COSO. Enterprise risk management – integrated framework (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  9. European Commission. The AEO Compact model. Technical Report TAXUD/2006/1452, Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. European Commission. Commission Regulation no 1875/2006 of 18 december 2006. Official Journal of the European Union 360, 64–125 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  11. European Commission. AEO guidelines. Technical Report TAXUD/2006/1450, Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gribnau, H.: Soft law and taxation: The case of the netherlands. Legisprudence 1(3), 291–326 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. ISACF. Control objectives for information and related technology, COBIT 4.1 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Knechel, W.R., Slaterio, S.E., Ballou, B.: Auditing: Assurance and Risk, 3rd edn. Thomson South-Western (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Korobkin, R.B.: Behavioral analysis and legal form: Rules vs. principles revisited. Oregon Law Review 79(1), 23–60 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  16. NIST 800-30. Risk management guide for information technology systems. Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Technology (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Power, M.: The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Power, M.: Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rees, J.: Self regulation: an effective alternative to direct regulation by OSHA? Policy Studies Journal 16(3), 602–614 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Romney, M., Steinbart, P.: Accounting Information Systems, 10e. Prentice Hall, NJ (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sadiq, S.W., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Sarbanes, Oxley: Public law 107 - 204 - sarbanes-oxley act of 2002. Technical Report Public Law 107 - 204, Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Simon, H.: Administrative Behavior, 1st edn., 3rd edn. Free Press, New York (1947/1976)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Simons, R.: Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  25. van der Hoek, W., Roberts, M., Wooldridge, M.: Social laws in alternating time: Effectiveness, feasibility and synthesis. Synthese 156(1), 119 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Walton, D.: Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yin, R.: Case study research: Design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Burgemeestre, B., Hulstijn, J., Tan, YH. (2010). Value-Based Argumentation for Justifying Compliance. In: Governatori, G., Sartor, G. (eds) Deontic Logic in Computer Science. DEON 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6181. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14183-6_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14183-6_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-14182-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-14183-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics