Abstract
We provide a logical analysis of private international law, a rather esoteric, but increasingly important, domain of the law. Private international law addresses overlaps and conflicts between legal systems by distributing cases between the authorities of such systems (jurisdiction) and establishing what rules these authorities have to apply to each case (choice of law). A formal model of the resulting interactions between legal systems is proposed based on modular argumentation. It is argued that this model may also be useful for governing the interactions between heterogeneous agents, belonging to different and differently regulated virtual societies, without recourse to a central regulatory agency. The model also provides for multiple interpretations concerning rules of private international law as well as substantive rules of the different legal systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alchourrón CE, Makinson D (1981) Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In: Hilpinen R (ed) New studies on deontic logic. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 123–148
Alchourrón CE, Gärdenfors P, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: partial meet functions for contractions and revisions. J Symb Log 50:510–530
Atrill S (2004) Choice of law in contract: the missing pieces of the article 4 jigsaw. Int Comp Law Q 53:549–577
Boella G, van der Torre L (2007) Institutions with a hierarchy of authorities in distributed dynamic environments. Artif Intell Law 16:53–71
Brewka G, Gordon TF (2010) Carneades and abstract dialectical frameworks: a reconstruction. In: Computational models of argument—proceedings of COMMA 2010, IOS, pp 3–12
Dayal S, Johnson P (1999) A web-based revolution in Australian public administration. In: Proceedings law via the internet ’99: 2nd AustLII conference on computerisation of law via the internet. Sydney: University of Technology. (Electronc publication. Also Published in the on line journal JILT, 2000, Issue 1.)
Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artif Intell 77:321–357
Dung PM, Kowalski R, Toni F (2006) Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. Artif Intell 170:114–159
Dung PM, Thang PM (2009) Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contract. Artif Intell Law 17:167–182
Dung PM, Sartor G (2010) A logical model of private international law. In: Governatori G, Sartor G (eds) Proceedings of the 10th international conference on deontic logic in computer science (DEON 2010). Springer, Berlin, pp 229–246
Dung PM, Thang PM, Hung ND (2010) Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance relief. J Argument Comput 1:47–69
Gärdenfors P (1987) Knowledge in flux. MIT, Cambridge
Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton DN (2007) The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171:875–896. Forthcoming
Governatori G, Maher MJ, Billington D, Antoniou G (2004) Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. J Logic Comput 14:675–702
Hage JC (1997) Reasoning with rules: an essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Hill J (2004) Choice of law in contact under the rome convention: the approach of the uk courts. Int Comp Law Q 53:325–350
Modgil S, Prakken H (2008) Applying preferences to dialogue graphs. In: Hunter A (ed) Proceedings of COMMA-08. Computational models of argument. IOS, Amsterdam
Prakken H (2010) An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument Comput 1:93–124
Prakken H, Sartor G (1996a) Rules about rules: assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4:331–368
Prakken H, Sartor G (1996b) System for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities. In: Proceedings of the international conference on formal and applied practical reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp 510–524
Prakken H, Sartor G (1997) Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J Appl Non Class Log 7:25–75
Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 223–253
Sartor G (2005) Legal reasoning: a cognitive approach to the law, volume 5 of treatise on legal philosophy and general jurisprudence. Springer, Berlin
Sartor G (2006) Fundamental legal concepts: a formal and teleological characterisation. Artif Intell Law 21:101–142
Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P, Cory H (1986) The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29:370–386
Stone P (2006) EU private international law: harmonisation of laws. Elgar
Svantesson DJ (2008) Private international law and the internet. Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht
Tamanaha BZ (2008) Understanding legal pluralism: past to present, local to global. Syd Law Rev 30:375–411
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dung, P.M., Sartor, G. The modular logic of private international law. Artif Intell Law 19, 233 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-011-9112-5
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-011-9112-5