on the interactional meaning of fundamental legal concepts
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts
Giovanni Sileno ([email protected]), Alexander Boer, Tom van Engers
Leibniz Center for LawUniversity of Amsterdam
11 December 2014 - JURIX @ Krakow
![Page 2: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Seeking foundations...● The identification of
elementary and fundamental legal concepts is a long-standing question in legal theory, analythical philosophy and AI & Law.
![Page 3: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Seeking foundations...● The identification of
elementary and fundamental legal concepts is a long-standing question in legal theory, analythical philosophy and AI & Law.Just considering our field after Hohfeld’s work (1917), the most known are Kanger and Kanger (1966), Lindahl (1977), Makinson (1986), Saunders (1989), Jones and Sergot (1995, 2001), Allen and Saxon (1995), Sartor (2006), and more recently, here at JURIX, Pace and Schapachnik (2012).
![Page 4: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Do such fundamental concepts exist?
● The difficulty of underpinning the essence of legal relation supports the legal realist position, illustrated by Alf Ross with the famous Tû-Tû paper.
![Page 5: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Do such fundamental concepts exist?
● The difficulty of underpinning the essence of legal relation supports the legal realist position, illustrated by Alf Ross with the famous Tû-Tû paper.
● In this, he considers an (imaginary) tribe Noît-cif living in the south pacific...
![Page 6: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Tû-Tû – Alf Ross (1952)
“This tribe [..] holds the belief that in the case of an infringement of certain taboos -for example, if a man encounters his mother-in-law, or if a totem animal is killed, or if someone has eaten of the food prepared for the chief - there arises what is called tû-tû. The members of the tribe also say that the person who committed the infringement has become tû-tû.”
![Page 7: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Tû-Tû – Alf Ross (1952)
“This tribe [..] holds the belief that in the case of an infringement of certain taboos -for example, if a man encounters his mother-in-law, or if a totem animal is killed, or if someone has eaten of the food prepared for the chief - there arises what is called tû-tû. The members of the tribe also say that the person who committed the infringement has become tû-tû.”
“a person who has become tû-tû must be subjected to a special ceremony of purification.”
![Page 8: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Tû-Tû – Alf Ross (1952)
“This tribe [..] holds the belief that in the case of an infringement of certain taboos -for example, if a man encounters his mother-in-law, or if a totem animal is killed, or if someone has eaten of the food prepared for the chief - there arises what is called tû-tû. The members of the tribe also say that the person who committed the infringement has become tû-tû.”
“a person who has become tû-tû must be subjected to a special ceremony of purification.”
descriptive / prescriptive functions
![Page 9: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Tû-Tû – Alf Ross (1952)
“It is obvious that the [..] tribe dwells in a state of darkest superstition. tû-tû is of course nothing at all, a word devoid of any meaning whatever.”
![Page 10: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Tû-Tû – Alf Ross (1952)
“It is obvious that the [..] tribe dwells in a state of darkest superstition. tû-tû is of course nothing at all, a word devoid of any meaning whatever.”
“Ownership, claim, and other words, when used in legal language, have the same function as the word tû-tû; they are words without meaning, without any semantic reference, and serve a purpose only as a technique of presentation.”
![Page 11: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Inferential meaning
● Sartor (2009), partially agrees with Ross, but defends the latter component, arguing that terms expressing legal qualifications have still an inferential meaning.
– We need a common terminological ground to be able to make sense of communications.
– Obviously, this may change in time.
G. Sartor. Legal concepts as inferential nodes and ontological categories. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2009.
![Page 12: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Two (big) problems● competing and debated (formal) semantics● constructivist nature of (legal) normative systems
![Page 13: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Two (big) problems● competing and debated (formal) semantics● constructivist nature of (legal) normative systems
● Is the quest for a fundamental common ontological ground for legal concepts therefore doomed to fail?
● Probably yes, but, without pretension of exhaustiveness, the present paper aims to shed light on some of the issues from a different perspective.
![Page 14: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Normative systems
● as systems of norms
![Page 15: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Normative systems
● as systems of norms
→ inferential meaning
![Page 16: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Normative systems
● as systems of norms
→ inferential meaning
● as systems of components (e.g. agents) whose behaviour is norm-guided
![Page 17: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Normative systems
● as systems of norms
→ inferential meaning
● as systems of components (e.g. agents) whose behaviour is norm-guided
→ interactional meaning
![Page 18: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Representational model
● Model requirements: communication between concurrent components and local causation.
![Page 19: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Representational model
● Model requirements: communication between concurrent components and local causation.
→ overlap with process modeling
![Page 20: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Representational model
● Model requirements: communication between concurrent components and local causation.
→ overlap with process modeling
● Taking advantage of this overlap, we consider Petri Nets as ground formalism, as they are simple, well known and intensively studied and used in many domains (engineering, biology, computer science, business modeling, etc.)
![Page 21: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Representational model
● Model requirements: communication between concurrent components and local causation.
→ overlap with process modeling
● Taking advantage of this overlap, we consider Petri Nets as ground formalism, as they are simple, well known and intensively studied and used in many domains (engineering, biology, computer science, business modeling, etc.) visual programming →techniques to mediate between natural and formal languages
![Page 22: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
4-slides-introduction to Petri Nets
![Page 23: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Petri Nets: the basics
placetransition
place
place
token
![Page 24: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
placetransition
place
place
token
token firing possible
Petri Nets: the basics
![Page 25: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
placetransition
place
place
token
token firing!
Petri Nets: the basics
![Page 26: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
placetransition
place
place
token
Petri Nets: the basics
![Page 27: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
placetransition
place
place
token
Petri Nets: the basics
● Informal meaning:– places (circles): potential local states– transition (boxes): events– tokens (dots) in current local states
![Page 28: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
A sale transaction
![Page 29: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
A sale transaction in 4 events:● offer● acceptance
![Page 30: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
A sale transaction in 4 events:● offer● acceptance● payment
![Page 31: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
A sale transaction in 4 events:● offer● acceptance● payment● delivery
![Page 32: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
A sale transaction in 4 events:● offer● acceptance● payment● delivery
![Page 33: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
concurrentexecution
sequential execution
![Page 34: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
● For each of these actions, there is a performer/ emittor and a recipient.
![Page 35: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
● For each of these actions, there is a performer/ emittor and a recipient.
→ Let us separate generation from reception.
![Page 36: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
page 42
![Page 37: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Buyer
Seller
page 42
![Page 38: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
synchronous execution
page 42
![Page 39: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
asynchronousexecution
page 42
![Page 40: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
● What do places – i.e. the local states enabling the actions – mean in this graph?
page 42
![Page 41: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
● In order to offer, I need the power to offer.● In order to accept, I need the power to accept.● After the acceptance, the buyer has the duty to pay...
page 42
![Page 42: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
page 43
![Page 43: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
● Liability is correlative to power and enables the recognition. In practice it corresponds to an epistemic obligation.
page 43
![Page 44: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
From this interactional perspective, a sale contract can be seen as the creation of a collective intentional entity aiming to the exchange of ownerships.
page 43
![Page 45: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
● Powers of payment and delivery may be generated after the acceptance.
page 43
![Page 46: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Relations between two parties
![Page 47: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
First Hohfeldian square
CLAIMRIGHT
DUTYcorrelative
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 48: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Second Hohfeldian square
POWERABILITY
LIABILITYSUBJECTION
correlative
opposite opposite
DISABILITY IMMUNITY
performer perspective recipient perspective
W. N. Hohfeld. Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 1917.
![Page 49: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Second Hohfeldian square
POWERABILITY
LIABILITYSUBJECTION
correlative
opposite opposite
DISABILITY IMMUNITY
performer perspective recipient perspective
Lindhal's formal analysis (1977) shows that privilege and immunity relationships are not constructed in the same way
![Page 50: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Squares, Triangles and Hexagons
![Page 51: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
A E
I O
ALL
SOME
NONE
SOMENOT
? ????
? ????
contrary
impliesimplies
The (existential) Aristotelian Square
![Page 52: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
“Some”
● In the '70s the French linguist Blanchot, amongst others, observed how, in common usage, “some” does not have the same meaning given in formal logic.
![Page 53: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
![Page 54: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
“Some”
● In the '70s the French logician Blanché, amongst others, observed how, in common usage, “some” does not have the same meaning given in formal logic.
● He identified a kind of “degraded position”, correspondent to the third position in the triangle of contrariety.
![Page 55: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
A E
Y
ALL
“SOME”
NONE
Triangle of contrariety
e.g.
![Page 56: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
A E
Y
ALL
“SOME”
NONE+ -
0
positive polarity negative polarity
no polarity
e.g.
![Page 57: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
A E
Y
ALL
“SOME”
NONEcontrary
+ -positive polarity negative polarity
no polarity 0e.g.
![Page 58: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
A E
I O
ALL NONE
SOMENOT
SOME
Blanchot proposed to extend the Aristotelian square with two new places: – the “bipolar” U – the “complex” Y
![Page 59: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
A E
I O
ALL NONE
SOMENOT
SOME
Y
UALL or NONE
SOME and SOME NOT “≡ SOME”
Blanchot proposed to extend the Aristotelian square with two new places: – the “bipolar” U – the “complex” Y
![Page 60: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
A E
I O
obligatorycommanded
licit (just)permitted
illicitedprohibited
omissiblenot commanded
Deontic square
Leibniz, Bentham terminologies
page 45
![Page 61: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
A E
I O
obligatorycommanded
licit (just)permitted
illicitedprohibited
omissiblenot commanded
U
Y
or commanded or prohibited ≡ imperative
permitted and not commanded ≡ at liberty, optional
Deontic hexagon
page 45
![Page 62: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
A E
I O
obl Anot perm not A
perm A
forb Anot perm A
perm not A
U
Y
obl A or forb A
Deontic hexagon
perm A and perm not A ≡ faculty A
page 45
![Page 63: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
A E
Y
prob A
+ -obl A
“perm” A = faculty A
0
Deontic triangle of contrariety
positive polarity negative polarity
no polarity
![Page 64: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Constructing prisms
![Page 65: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
DUTYCLAIM
NO-CLAIM PRIVILEGE
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
![Page 66: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
NO-CLAIM PRIVILEGE
DUTYCLAIM
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
![Page 67: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
DUTYCLAIM
NO-CLAIM PRIVILEGE
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
page 46
![Page 68: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
AE
Y
prob
obl
“perm” = faculty
DUTYCLAIM
NO-CLAIMPRIVILEGE
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
+-
page 46
![Page 69: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
AE
Y
prob
obl
“perm” = faculty
DUTYCLAIM
NO-CLAIMPRIVILEGE
right to protection against
right to performance
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
+-+-
page 46
![Page 70: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
AE
Y
prob
obl
“perm” = faculty
DUTYCLAIM
NO-CLAIMPRIVILEGE
right to protection against
right to performance
First Hohfeldian prism
beneficiary perspective addressee perspective
+-+-
page 46
![Page 71: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
LIABILITYPOWER
DISABILITY IMMUNITY
performer perspective recipient perspective
page 46
![Page 72: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
POWER
DISABILITY
performer perspective
LIABILITY
IMMUNITY
recipient perspective
page 46
![Page 73: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
DISABILITY
performer perspective
IMMUNITY
recipient perspective
LIABILITYPOWER
page 46
![Page 74: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
AE
Y“perm”, faculty to follow along
+--LIABILITYPOWER
DISABILITYIMMUNITY
prob ...
obl to follow along
performer perspective recipient perspective
page 46
+
![Page 75: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
AE
Y
prob ...
obl to follow along
“perm”, faculty to follow along
+-+-LIABILITYPOWER
DISABILITYIMMUNITY
(positive)power
performer perspective recipient perspective
page 46
![Page 76: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
AE
Y
prob ...
obl to follow along
“perm”, faculty to follow along
+-+-LIABILITYPOWER
DISABILITYIMMUNITY
“negative”power
(positive)power
performer perspective recipient perspective
?page 46
![Page 77: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
● The recipient's position of the negative power axis corresponds to the prohibition of recognizing the consequences consequent to the use of the power.
● It basically forbids the “integration” of the recipient to the institutional domain where the power originates.
Negative power axis
![Page 78: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
● In practice, this position is used to claim the impossibility of being controlled by a certain normative order (probably previously holding for the recipient).
● Common life examples:– teens with parents,– smaller siblings with oldest ones, ...
● A legal example?
Negative liability
![Page 79: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
The Dutch Declaration of Independence - Act of Abjuration (1581)
“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.”
Negative liability
![Page 80: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Summing up in practical reasoning
![Page 81: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
page 47
![Page 82: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Recipient/Addressee Performer
page 47
![Page 83: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Institutionally derived commitment
Autonomous commitment
page 47
![Page 84: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Motive Intent Action Outcome→ → →
N. Pennington and R. Hastie. Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. 1993.
Floris Bex and Bart Verheij. Solving a Murder Case by Asking Critical Questions: An Approach to Fact-Finding in Terms of Argumentation and Story Schemes. Argumentation, 2011.
page 47
![Page 85: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
PACK (prevent acquire cure keep) framework
D. M. Ogilvie and K. M. Rose. Self-with-other representations and a taxonomy of motives: two approaches to studying persons. Journal of personality, 1995.
page 47
![Page 86: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
Permission and immunity are missing in the picture but can be inferred from the absence of tokens from the associated positive/negative normative positions.
page 47
![Page 87: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
This is confirmed in legal practice: explicitly granting immunity can be interpreted as putting the recipient out of the influence of power; and permission as the removal of a previous constraint (licere).
page 47
![Page 88: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
Conclusions
![Page 89: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
● The paper provides an example of how an operational description of a social interaction can be represented as a Petri Net, enriched with normative concepts.
Conclusions
![Page 90: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
● The paper provides an example of how an operational description of a social interaction can be represented as a Petri Net, enriched with normative concepts.
● Our research hypothesis is that this legal reverse engineering process is of critical importance to test the alignment between abstract and contextualized normative sources.
Conclusions
![Page 91: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
● Considering jural positions as data structures, produced and consumed by social and institutional systems, we need to identify primitive fundamental patterns
→ introduction of the two Hohfeldian prisms.
Conclusions
![Page 92: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
● Besides a new visualization, the Hohfeldian prisms– harmonize the privilege/immunity positions,
Conclusions
![Page 93: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
● Besides a new visualization, the Hohfeldian prisms– harmonize the privilege/immunity positions, – integrate negative liability/power,
Conclusions
![Page 94: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
● Besides a new visualization, the Hohfeldian prisms– harmonize the privilege/immunity positions, – integrate negative liability/power, – provide a simple explanation of the conflation
of the word right for power (removing “to be followed along”)
Conclusions
![Page 95: On the Interactional Meaning of Fundamental Legal Concepts](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042608/55cd7095bb61eb362e8b4607/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
● Besides a new visualization, the Hohfeldian prisms– harmonize the privilege/immunity positions, – integrate negative liability/power, – provide a simple explanation of the conflation
of the word right for power (removing “to be followed along”)
– their positions are easily aligned with practical reasoning/motivational models, a promising track to be fully investigated in the future
Conclusions