Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality

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

Abstract

This paper studies how legal choices, and in particular legislative determinations, need to consider multiple rights and values, and can be assessed accordingly. First it is argued that legal norms (and in particular constitutional right-norms) often prescribe the pursuit of goals, which may be in conflict one with another. Then a model of teleological reasoning is brought to bear on choices affecting different goals, among which those prescribed by constitutional norms. An analytical framework is provided for evaluating such choices with regard to possible alternatives. The assessment of legislative choices according to proportionality is then considered, and is modelled using the provided analytical framework. Finally, the framework is expanded to include the ideas of reasonableness and institutional deference, and the corresponding margins of appreciation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler MD, Posner EA (eds) (2001) Cost-benefit analysis: legal, economic, and philosophical perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleinikoff T (1987) Constitutional law in the age of balancing. Yale Law J 96:943–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexy R (2002) A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy R (2003a) Constitutional rights, balancing, and rationality. Ratio Juris 16:131–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexy R (2003b) On balancing and subsumption: a structural comparison. Ratio Juris 16:33–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquinas T (1947) Summa theologiae. Benzinger Bros, Allen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley KD (2008) A process model of legal argument with hypotheticals. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscornia D (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2008: the twenty-first annual conference, IOS, Amsterdam, pp 1–10

  • Barak A (2009) Human rights and their limitations: the role of proportionality. In: Annual lecture in law and society. Foundation for Law, Justice and Society

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Prakken H (2009) A case study of hypothetical and value-based reasoning in US Supreme-Court cases. In: Governatori G (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2009: the twenty-second annual conference, vol 11–20. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 11–20

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Prakken H (2010). Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artif Intell Law 18 (forthcoming)

  • Bench-Capon TJM, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150:97–142

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL). ACM, New York, pp 50–59

  • Binmore K (2005) Natural justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chorley A, Bench-Capon TJM (2003) Reasoning with legal cases as theory construction: some experimental results. In: Bourcier D (ed) Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX). IOS, Amsterdam, pp 173–82

  • Habermas J (1999) Between facts and norms. MIT, Cambridge, (1st ed. in German 1992.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage JC (2004) Comparing alternatives in the law. Artif Intell Law 12:181–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey R (1983) The logic of decision. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplow L, Shavell S (2002) Fairness versus welfare. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and trade offs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1967) The pure theory of law. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (2007) Political liberalism and the structure of rights. In: Law, rights and discourse. Themes from the legal philosophy of robert alexy. Hart, Oxford, pp 131–66

  • Luhmann N (1973) Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalität. Frankfurt am Mein Suhrkamp

  • Miller B (2008) Justification and rights limitations. In: Huscroft G (ed) Expounding the constitutions: essays in constitutional theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nimmer M (1968) The right to speak from times to time: first amendment theory applied to libel and misapplied to privacy. Calif Law Rev 56:935–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick R (1993) The nature of rationality. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Pino G (2010) Diritti e interpetazione. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock JL (1989) How to build a person: a prolegomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock JL (1995) Cognitive carpentry: a blueprint for how to build a person. MIT, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner RA (1983) Justice and efficiency. In: The economics of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 48–115

  • Prakken H (2000) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. In: Prakken H, Winkels R (eds) Proceedings of the thirteenth annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX). IOS, Amsterdam, pp 49–57

  • Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice (Revised ed). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz J (1975) Practical reason and norms. Hutchinson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz J (1978) Reasons for action, decisions and norms. In: Raz J (ed) Practical reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 128–43

  • Sadurski W (2008) Equality and legitimacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • 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 (2009) A sufficientist approach to reasonabless in legal decision-making and judicial review. In: Bongiovanni G, Sartor G, Valentini C (eds) Reasonableness and law. Springer, New York, pp 17–68

  • Schauer F (1991) Playing by the rules. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheinin M (2009) Terrorism and the pull of ’balancing’ in the name of security. In: Law and security—facing the dilemmas, EUI Working Paper, pp 55–63

  • Sen A (2004) Elements of a theory of human rights. Philos Public Aff 32:315–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1983) Reason in human affairs. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Soper P (2002) The ethics of deference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A, Mathews J (2008) Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism. Columbia J Transnatl Law 47:72–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (1999) Law and disagreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Department Villa Schifanoia, European University Institute, Via Boccaccio 121, 50133, Florence, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor

  2. CIRSFIC, Via Galliera 34, Bologna, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor

Authors
  1. Giovanni Sartor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Sartor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sartor, G. Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artif Intell Law 18, 175–215 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9095-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9095-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation