A Landscape of Legal Teleology: Formalization through - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
A Landscape of Legal Teleology: Formalization through Visualization Vytautas YRAS Vilnius University, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius, Lithuania Vytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt IT 2010, 21-23 April 2010, Kaunas, Lithuania Kaunas
Vytautas ČYRAS
Vilnius University, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius, Lithuania Vytautas.Cyras@mif.vu.lt
IT 2010, 21-23 April 2010, Kaunas, Lithuania Kaunas University of Technology
2
3
KAOS metamodel; see Heaven & Finkelstein (2004). KAOS – a goal-oriented requirements engineering methodology; see van Lamsweerde.
4
5
27-29.05.2008, Mautern e-Government, Workshop II 6
See Heaven & Finkelstein (2004), adapted from Letier (2001)
7
subgoal-1 agent-1 subgoal-2 agent-3 agent-4
Agent and goal in RE Subject and telos in the law
□ G.
to hold. Negation of achieve.
Negation of maintain.
Braubach et al. (2004) about Belief-Desire-Intention agent systems
8
9
10
11
Premise 1: Obtaining of the situation G is prescribed Premise 2: If one had not do H, then G would not be obtained __________________________________________________ Conclusion: One should do H
(see Aleksander Peczenik (1937-2005) “On law and reason”, 2008).
The objective-teleological construction of statutes:
Premise 1: According to an interpretation, supported by various juristic substantive and authority reasons, the provision, L, is a means to fulfill the goal, G Premise 2: If one had not interpreted L as containing the rule R, then G would not be obtained ____________________________________________________________ Conclusion: One should interpret L as containing the rule R
12
“The purpose of the statute (ratio legis) as regards hard cases differs from the will of the persons that participated in the process of legislation. Neither the ratio nor the proposed construction of statutes follow logically (emphasis added) from the description of the will alone.”
13
Mockevičius 2002).
legislative drafting.
14
Teleological network
Goal model in RE
community
– Berman & Hafner 1993; AI and Law journal, v.10 (2002), no.1-2 – Goals: interests, values; purposes, policies; intentions of a legislator
– However, in G. Sartor, 2006 “Fundamental legal concepts”
– governmental drafting; parliamentarian decisions; publication of the valid laws
rare explicit teleological structures
15
– “The people think in roles, not rules”
16
– A constitution for Europe
– “Governance is governing by goals” – Result-prescribing norms
17
“Increasing the performance of the governance”
regulations
18
19
20
The structure of a norm. The elements: (1) Condition (2) Disposition (2.1) Subject. This is an addressee – an actor; (2.2) Action; (2.3) Normative modus (obligatory, permitted, forbidden); (2.4) Object of the action. (3) Telos – the explicit teleological element of the norm. We add the telos. Norm
(1) Condition (2.4) Object (3) Telos (2.1) Subject (2.3) Action (2.3) Modus
21
Norm
Object Subject Modus
Example 1: “Open the door” (1) Condition: empty (2.1) Subject: implicit (2.2) Action: “open” (2.3) Modus: implicit in the verb “open” (2.4) Object: “the door” (3) Telos: empty
Action
22
Norm
Object Subject Modus Action
Example 2: “You must open the door” (1) Condition: empty (2.1) Subject: “you” (2.2) Action: “open” (2.3) Modus: “must” – obligatio (2.4) Object: “the door” (3) Telos: empty
23
Norm
Object Telos Subject Action Modus
Example 3: “You must open the door for fresh air” (1) Condition: empty (2.1) Subject: “you” (2.2) Action: “open” (2.3) Normative modus of the action: “must” (2.4) Object the action: “the door” (3) Telos: “for fresh air”
24
Norm
B G S1 A Obligatio
Example 4: “Subject S1 must open the door for fresh air” Notation in the form of relation:
Notation within norm elements:
Notation in algorithmical language: norm( condition=empty, disposition( subject=S1, action=A, modus=O, object=B ), telos=G )
A = close_the_door and G = security
25
26
Straβe = Landfläche te→ ( Fuβgängerverkehr ∨ Fahrzeugverkehr ) & ( Anlagen te→ Verkehr )
in English:
street = land_area te→ ( pedestrian_traffic ∨ vehicle_traffic ) & ( facilities te→ traffic )
Straβe: eine für den Fuβgänger- oder Fafhrzeugverkehr bestimmte Landfläche samt den in ihrem Zuge befindlichen und diesem Verkehr dienenden baulichen Anlagen. (see Straβenverkehrsordnung 1960 (StVO), §2, para.1)
27
28
y = f(x1,x2) L = 〈 g0 = initial_situation, g1, g2, … , gM = goal_situation 〉
29
Initial situation Goal Path
Text
30
“A destination can be reached by a cheap and slow train, means1, or by an expensive but fast train, means2” w(means) = α1⋅ price + α2⋅ time L = 〈m1, m2, … , mM 〉 w(L) = ∑M
i=1 w(mi)
path1 = 〈up, up〉 is preferred to path2 = 〈up, down, up, up〉 because w(path1) = 2 < w(path2) = 4.
31
“The end justifies the means” (Der Zweck heiligt das Mittel). Kant’s imperative: “Who is willing the end, must be willing the means” (Wer den Zweck will, muss das Mittel wollen).
3 means mwrong, mweak and mright
32
33
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), an English jurist, philosopher, utilitarist:
“Legislation must be shaped with reference to the greatest good for the greatest number.”
My notation:
legislation te→ the_greatest_good_for_the_greatest_number
34
Jhering’s Law of Purpose: no volition, or, which is the same thing, no action, without purpose.
35
36
Sufficient condition scheme from Walton (1998) incremented from 3 to 5 elements:
currCircumstances goal action newCircumstances value
37
– Assigning goals to software requirements
– Annotating a statute with goals, i.e. serving as a commentary – Goal representation forms
38
1. Formal analysis of goals is employed in systems
2. Visualization precedes formalisation. 3. Teleology can be associated with different elements of a norm.
the normative layer of a legal system can be supplemented with a teleological layer.
discrete 2-elements notation action te→ goal.
39
40