Skip to main content
Log in

Deontic logic in the representation of law: Towards a methodology

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There seems to be no clear consensus in the existing literature about the role of deontic logic in legal knowledge representation — in large part, we argue, because of an apparent misunderstanding of what deontic logic is, and a misplaced preoccupation with the surface formulation of legislative texts. Our aim in this paper is to indicate, first, which aspects of legal reasoning are addressed by deontic logic, and then to sketch out the beginnings of a methodology for its use in the analysis and representation of law.

The essential point for which we argue is that deontic logic — in some form or other —needs to be taken seriously whenever it is necessary to make explicit, and then reason about, the distinction between what ought to be the case and what is the case, or as we also say, between the ideal and the actual. We take the library regulations at Imperial College as the main illustration, and small examples from genuinely legal domains to introduce specific points. In conclusion, we touch on the role of deontic logic in the development of the theory of normative positions.

Deontic logic and the theory of normative positions are of relevance to legal knowledge representation, but also to the analysis and. representation of normative systems generally. The emphasis of the paper is on legal knowledge representation, but we seek to place the discussion within the context of a broader range of issues concerning the role of deontic logic in Computer Science.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alchourrón, C. E. & Martino, A. A 1989. A Sketch of Logic Without Truth. In Proceedings of The Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Vancouver: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. E. & Saxon, C. S 1986. Analysis of the Logical Structure of Legal Rules by a Modernized and Formalized Version of Hohfeld Fundamental Legal Conceptions. In Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, eds. Socci, F., Martino A. A. 385–451. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L. E. & Saxon, C. S. 1991. More IA Needed in AI: Interpretation Assistance for Coping with the Problem of Multiple Structural Interpretations. In Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 53–61 Oxford: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åqvist, L. & Hoepelman, J. 1981. Some Theorems about a “tree” System of Deontic Tense Logic. In New Studies in Deontic Logic, ed. R. Hilpinen. Synthese Library 152, Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 1989. Deep Models, Normative Reasoning and Legal Expert Systems. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 37–45 Vancouver: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Robinson, G. O., Routen, T. W. & Sergot, M. J. 1987. Logic Programming for Large Scale Applications in Law: A Formalisation of Supplementary Benefit Legislation. In Proceeding of The First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 190–198 Boston: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biagioli, C., Mariani, P. & Tiscornia, D. 1987. ESPLEX: A Rule and Conceptual Based Model for Representing Statutes. In Proceedings of The First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. 240–251 Boston: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chellas, B. F. 1980: Modal Logic — An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, R, M. 1963. Contrary-to-duty Imperatives and Deontic Logic. Analysis 24.

  • Fiadeiro, J. & Maibaum, T. S. E. 1991. Temporal Reasoning over Deontic Specifications. Logic and Computation (to appear).

  • Gardner, A.v.d.L. 1984. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. Bradford Books/MIT Press.

  • Herrestad, H. 1991. Norms and Formalization. In Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 175–184 Oxford: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. J. I. 1990. Deontic Logic and Legal Knowledge Representation. Ratio Juris 3.

  • Jones, A. J. L, & Pörn, I. 1985. Ideality, Sub-ideality and Deontic Logic. Synthese 65.

  • Jones, A. J. I. & Pörn, I. 1991. On the Logic of Deontic Conditionals. In Proceedings of The First International Workship on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON `91), Amsterdam.

  • Jones, A. J. I. & Sergot, M. J. 1991. On the Role of Deontic Logic in the Characterisation of Normative Systems. In Proceedings of The First International Workship on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON `91). Amsterdam.

  • Khosla, S. & Maibaum, T. S. E. 1987. The Prescription and Description of State Based Systems. In Temporal Logic in Specification, ed. B. Banieqbal, et al., Lecture Notes in Computer Science 398, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, L. 1977. Position and Change — A Study in Law and Logic: Synthese Library 112, Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewer, B. & Belzer, M. 1983 Dyadic Deontic Detachment. Synthese 54: 295–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, D. N. 1990. Paper presented to the ESPRIT Working Group on Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Cork.

  • McCarty, L. T. 1977. Reflections on TAXMAN: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. Harvard Law Review 90: 837–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. 1983. Permissions and Obligations. In Proceedings of The Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 287–294. Karlsruhe.

  • McCarty, L. T. 1986. Permissions and Obligations: An Informal Introduction. In Automated Analysis of Legal Texts, eds. A. A. Martino, F. Socci, 307–337. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. 1989. A Language for Legal Discourse I. Basic features. In Proceedings of The Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 180–189. Vancouver: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melman, J. A. 1975. A Preliminary Study in Computer-aided Legal Analysis. MIT Report MAC TR-157, Cambridge: M.I.T.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.-J., Ch. 1988. A Different Approach to Deontic Logic: Deontic Logic Viewed as a Variant of Dynamic Logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29.

  • Minsky, N. H. & Lockman, A. 1985. Ensuring Integrity by Adding Obligations to Privileges. In Proceedings of The Eighth International Conference on Software Engineering, 92–102.

  • Morris, P. & McDermid, J. 1991. The Structure of Permissions: A Nonnative Framework for Access Rights. In Proceedings of The First International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON `91). Amsterdam.

  • Nitta, K., Nagao, J. & Mizutori, T. 1988. A Knowledge Representation and Inference System for Procedural Law. New Generation Computing 5: 319–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, H. 1988. Knowledge Representation for Procedural Law. MSc thesis. London: Department of Computing, Imperial College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergot, M. J. 1982. Prospects for Representing the Law as Logic Programs. In Logic Programming, eds. K.L. Clark, S-A Tarnlund, London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergot, M. J. 1985. Representing Legislation as Logic Programs. In Machine Intelligence 11, eds. J. E. Hayes, D. Michie, J. Richards, 209–260. Oxford University Press. Sergot, M. J. 1990. The Representation of Law in Computer Programs: A Survey and Comparison. In Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications, ed. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Academic Press.

  • Sergot, M. J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R. A., Kriwaczek, F., Hammond, P. & Cory, H. T. 1986. The British Nationality Act as a Logic Program. Communications of the ACM 29: 370–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, R. E. 1987. Expert Systems in Law: A Jurisprudential Inquiry. Oxford University Press.

  • Twining, W. L. & Miers, D. 1982. How To Do Things With Rules (2nd Edition). London: Wiedenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M. Deontic logic in the representation of law: Towards a methodology. Artif Intell Law 1, 45–64 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118478

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118478

Keywords

Navigation