Aligning Law and Action
-
Upload
telecom-paristech -
Category
Engineering
-
view
18 -
download
1
Transcript of Aligning Law and Action
![Page 1: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Aligning Law and Actiona conceptual and computational inquiry
Giovanni Sileno
Leibniz Center for Law – Faculty of LawUniversity of Amsterdam
Ph.D. Thesis Defense – 8 December 2016
![Page 2: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Problem context
● Fast pace of innovation
– Technological– Social
● Integration
– Economic– Institutional
![Page 3: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Problem context, consequences
In practice, the same expectations we have towards an ATM..
an engineering problem?
→ Increased expectations towards administrative organizations:
● efficiency, in terms of resources spent,● efficacy, in terms of impact,● agility, in terms of:
– rapidity of response (responsiveness)
![Page 4: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Problem context, consequences→ Increased expectations towards
administrative organizations:● efficiency, in terms of resources spent,● efficacy, in terms of impact,● agility, in terms of:
– rapidity of response to failures (responsiveness)– easiness of adaptation (adaptability)
![Page 5: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Initial research question
● How to establish a constructive computational legal theory which supports administrative organizations in achieving better responsiveness and adaptability?
![Page 6: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
sourcesof law
socialsystem
services
What the law states..
How people behave..
How public administrations implements the law..
are three matters only loosely coupled
Three frictioning “realities”
![Page 7: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Three representational domains
sourcesof law
socialsystem
services
stories,experiences
legal norms
businessprocess models
legal cases
![Page 8: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Three representational domains
sourcesof law
socialsystem
services
stories,experiences
businessprocess models
frictions identified by alignment checking
legal caseslegal norms
![Page 9: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Common representational ground?
sourcesof law
socialsystem
services
stories,experiences
businessprocess models
?legal caseslegal norms
![Page 10: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
sourcesof law
socialsystem
services
stories,experiences
businessprocess models
intentional characterizationsof situated actions
specificationsof actions
legal norms
institutional characterizationsof abstract or situated actions
common ground:actions.. roles!
legal cases
![Page 11: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
sourcesof law
socialsystem
services
stories,experiences
businessprocess models
legal cases
legal norms agent-rolemodels
narrative roles
institutional roles
operational roles
functional roles
social roles
![Page 12: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
sourcesof law
services
socialsystem
stories,experiences
businessprocess models
legal cases
legal norms agent-rolemodels
narrative roles
institutional roles
operational roles
functional roles
social roles
agent-role: abstraction of individualscoordination of roles
agent-rolemodels
![Page 13: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
What's in an agent-role model?
![Page 14: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Normative positions
![Page 15: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Institutional positions
● In a formal institution, each actor is bound to other actors according to certain legal relationships, associated to legal positions.
● Hohfeld [1917] introduced a visual organization of fundamental legal positions encountered in adjudications.
![Page 16: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
First Hohfeldian square
CLAIMRIGHT DUTY
correlative
opposite opposite
NO-CLAIMNO-RIGHT
PRIVILEGELIBERTYNO-DUTY
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
W. N. Hohfeld. Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 1917.
![Page 17: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Second Hohfeldian square
POWERABILITY
LIABILITYSUBJECTION
correlative
opposite opposite
DISABILITY IMMUNITY
performer perspective recipient perspective
Lindhal's formal analysis (1977) showed that liberty and immunity relationships are asymmetrical in the framework
![Page 18: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Similar asymmetries
These asymmetries can be explained by referring to the standard axioms of deontic logic, here represented on a portion of the Aristotelian square.
imp l ie snegates
![Page 19: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
A E
I O
ALL
SOME
NONE
SOMENOT
? ????
? ????
contrary
impliesimplies
The (existential) Aristotelian Square
![Page 20: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
A E
I O
ALL NONE
SOMENOT
SOME
Y
UALL or NONE
SOME and SOME NOT “≡ SOME”
![Page 22: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
A E
I O
ALL NONE
SOMENOT
SOMEY
UALL or NONE
SOME and SOME NOT “≡ SOME”
![Page 23: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
A E
Y
forb A+ -obl A
“perm” A = faculty A
0
Deontic triangle of contrariety
positive polarity negative polarity
no polarity
![Page 24: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
DUTYCLAIM
NO-CLAIM LIBERTY
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
![Page 25: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
NO-CLAIM LIBERTY
DUTYCLAIM
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
![Page 26: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
DUTYCLAIM
NO-CLAIM LIBERTY
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
![Page 27: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
AE
Y
forb
“perm” = faculty
DUTYCLAIM
NO-CLAIMLIBERTY
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
+-obl
![Page 28: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
AE
Y
forb
obl
“perm” = faculty
DUTYCLAIM
NO-CLAIMLIBERTY
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
+-right to
protection against
right to performance
First Hohfeldian Prism
![Page 29: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
LIABILITYPOWER
DISABILITY IMMUNITY
performer perspective recipient perspective
![Page 30: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
POWER
DISABILITY
performer perspective
LIABILITY
IMMUNITY
recipient perspective
![Page 31: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
DISABILITY
performer perspective
IMMUNITY
recipient perspective
LIABILITYPOWER
![Page 32: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
E
Y“perm”, faculty to follow along
+--LIABILITYPOWER
DISABILITYIMMUNITY
forb to follow along
obl to follow along
performer perspective recipient perspective
+A
Second Hohfeldian Prism
(positive)power
negativepower ?
![Page 33: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
The Dutch Declaration of Independence Act of Abjuration (1581)
Negative liability – confirmation
“Know all men by these presents [..] we have unanimously and deliberately declared [..] that the King of Spain has forfeited, ipso jure, all hereditary right to the sovereignty of those countries, and are determined from henceforward not to acknowledge his sovereignty or jurisdiction [..], nor suffer others to do it.”
![Page 34: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Agentive positions
![Page 35: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
From institutional to agentive● intuition: correlativeness of legal relationships holding
between two parties can be put in relation with the correlativeness of the agent with his own environment
investigating a kind of “contract for living”
![Page 36: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Why is this important?
● It provides a richer expressivity than usual intentional models.
● It shows is a deep connection between practical reasoning and normative reasoning categories:
Law is embedded with a theory of mind.
![Page 37: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Cognitive grounding
→ Mapping of general reasoning questions:
● From commitment to action
– What is to be done?● From commitment to monitoring
– What is to be paid attention to?
![Page 38: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
“It is obligatory to finish the thesis in four years.”
“It is forbidden that four years are spent without finishing the thesis.”
Are they the same?
![Page 39: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
“It is obligatory to finish the thesis in four years.” ~ obl(thesis ¬4ypassed)∨
“It is forbidden that four years are spent without finishing the thesis.”~ forb(¬thesis 4ypassed)∧
obl(A) forb(¬A)↔
Deontic logic would say yes.
![Page 40: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
“It is obligatory to finish the thesis in four years.”
“It is forbidden that four years are spent without finishing the thesis.”
But in principle they activate different patterns (ACQUIRE vs PREVENT)
→ different susceptibilities!
![Page 41: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Returning on agility
![Page 42: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
services
agent-rolemodels
sourcesof law
socialsystem
stories,experiences
businessprocess models
legal cases
punctualcases of non-compliancewrong service execution
adaptivenormative changesocial change
Looking for frictions...
legal norms
![Page 43: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Service model
Checking alignment between modelsNormative model
are they “compatible”?
(after execution: yes!)
![Page 44: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Service model
Checking alignment between models
are they “compatible”?
Normative model
(after execution: yes!) → alternative interpretations can be accountedNOTE: normative model issued after interpretation
Deciding the final interpretation is a matter of justification, and then argumentation...
![Page 45: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Service model
Checking alignment between models
are they “compatible”?
Normative model
(after execution: yes!) → alternative interpretations can be accountedNOTE: normative model issued after interpretation
Deciding the final interpretation is a matter of justification, and then argumentation...
…
![Page 46: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Conclusion
![Page 47: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Outlining the kernel of agency● The core problem – of normative, epistemic and
ontological frictions – is more general than the legal domain, and it is related to the different modalities we attribute to reality.
collectiveindividual
physical
![Page 48: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
● Importance of acknowledging the deep interaction of normative concepts with practical reasoning,
● Necessity of mapping constructivist and pluralistic approaches in technological terms
– incremental acquisition of relevant cases– maintenance of alternative interpretations
Key points
![Page 49: Aligning Law and Action](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030318/5a6cee4c7f8b9ac2418b4813/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
requiresguidance ≠ control
more knowledgeless data