David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):175-215 (2010)
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
|Keywords||Argumentation Proportionality Teleological reasoning Values Norms Constitutional review|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner (2012). A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
Similar books and articles
Charles-Maxime Panaccio (2011). In Defence of Two-Step Balancing and Proportionality in Rights Adjudication. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 24 (1):109-128.
Henry Prakken (2002). An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case-Based Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (1-3):113-133.
Giovanni Sartor (2006). Fundamental Legal Concepts: A Formal and Teleological Characterisation. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (1-2):101-142.
Matthias Klatt (2012). The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality. Oxford University Press.
Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor (2013). Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes. Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
Gunnar Beck (2008). The Mythology of Human Rights. Ratio Juris 21 (3):312-347.
Amartya Sen (2012). The Global Reach of Human Rights. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (2):91-100.
Moshe Cohen-Eliya & Iddo Porat, American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins.
Charles-Maxime Panaccio (2010). Review of G.C.N. Webber, The Negotiable Constitution: On the Limitation of Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2009). [REVIEW] International Journal of Constitutional Law 8 (4):988-995.
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon & Giovanni Sartor (2003). A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):97-143.
Carole D. Hafner & Donald H. Berman (2002). The Role of Context in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: Teleological, Temporal, and Procedural. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (1-3):19-64.
Added to index2010-11-17
Total downloads18 ( #78,331 of 1,089,063 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,801 of 1,089,063 )
How can I increase my downloads?