This paper investigates whether or not cases of in concreto antinomies (ICAs for short, also called indirect antinomies, accidental antinomies, normative conflicts due to the facts, predicaments, or paranomies) can be predicted. I distinguish two main theoretical positions: “Prodetection” argues that we can predict in concreto antinomies; “unpredictability” argues that we cannot predict them.I exemplify the two positions by relying on a disagreement found in the literature; then, after reviewing that disagreement, I (i) provide arguments for both positions; (ii) highlight (...) the problematic issues for a definition of in concreto antinomy based on conceptual independence; (iii) point out some problems in Martínez Zorrilla’s threefold conception of normative conflicts; and (iv) advocate the need to introduce a case for “practically unpredictable” normative conflicts. (shrink)

To adequately deal with unpredictable and dynamic environments, normative frameworks typically deployed in mechanisms for modifying the norms at runtime are crucial. We present the syntax and operational semantics of programming constructs to facilitate runtime norm modification, allowing a programmer to specify when and how the norms may be changed by external agents or by the normative mechanism. The norms take on the form of conditional obligations and prohibitions, instantiating obligations and prohibitions. We present rule-based constructs for runtime modification of (...) the norms and their instances, and a mechanism for automatically updating the instances when their underlying norms change. Moreover, we investigate a mechanism for avoiding norm conflicts. (shrink)

El problema de los conflictos normativos ha constituido uno de los principales obstáculos para un tratamiento lógico-formal de los razo namientos jurídicos. Una de las recientes estrategias para abordar esta cuestión se apoya en las lógicas no-monotónicas desarrolladas en el ámbito de la Inteligencia Artificial con el fin de representar el razona miento común. Sin embargo, un análisis en detalle nos llevará a cuestio nar este entoque.

Kulicki and Trypuz (2016) introduced three systems of multivalued deontic action logic to handle normative conflicts. The first system suggests a pessimistic view on normative conflicts, according to which any conflicting option represents something forbidden; the second system suggests an optimistic view, according to which any conflicting option represents something obligatory; finally, the third system suggests a neutral view, according to which any conflicting option represents something that is neither obligatory nor forbidden. The aim of the present paper is to (...) propose a fourth system in this family, which comes with a realistic view on normative conflicts: a normative conflict remains unsolved unless it is generated by two or more normative sources that can be compared. In accordance with this, we will provide a more refined formal framework for the family of systems at issue, which allows for explicit reference to sources of norms. Conflict resolution is thus a consequence of a codified hierarchy of normative sources. (shrink)