A structured argumentation framework for detaching conditional obligations

We present a general formal argumentation system for dealing with the detachment of conditional obligations. Given a set of facts, constraints, and conditional obligations, we answer the question whether an unconditional obligation is detachable by considering reasons for and against its detachment. For the evaluation of arguments in favor of detaching obligations we use a Dung-style argumentation-theoretical semantics. We illustrate the modularity of the general framework by considering some extensions, and we compare the framework to some related approaches from the literature.Comment: This is our submission to DEON 2016, including the technical appendi

Theory of Semi-Instantiation in Abstract Argumentation

We study instantiated abstract argumentation frames of the form $(S,R,I)$, where $(S,R)$ is an abstract argumentation frame and where the arguments $x$ of $S$ are instantiated by $I(x)$ as well formed formulas of a well known logic, for example as Boolean formulas or as predicate logic formulas or as modal logic formulas. We use the method of conceptual analysis to derive the properties of our proposed system. We seek to define the notion of complete extensions for such systems and provide algorithms for finding such extensions. We further develop a theory of instantiation in the abstract, using the framework of Boolean attack formations and of conjunctive and disjunctive attacks. We discuss applications and compare critically with the existing related literature

JURI SAYS:An Automatic Judgement Prediction System for the European Court of Human Rights

In this paper we present the web platform JURI SAYS that automatically predicts decisions of the European Court of Human Rights based on communicated cases, which are published by the court early in the proceedings and are often available many years before the final decision is made. Our system therefore predicts future judgements of the court. The platform is available at jurisays.com and shows the predictions compared to the actual decisions of the court. It is automatically updated every month by including the prediction for the new cases. Additionally, the system highlights the sentences and paragraphs that are most important for the prediction (i.e. violation vs. no violation of human rights)

The Ethics of Pre-Onset Early Detection and Interventions in Psychiatry

In this dissertation, I assess the ethical debate surrounding the development of pre-emptive psychiatry, and propose to reframe it around models of vulnerability. This leads me to advocate for nonspecific staging models over the creation of attenuated syndromes. Chapter 1 delineates the ‘mid-level’ approaches I selected for the ethical appraisal of various models of vulnerability: mainly, Beauchamp and Childress’ principlism and Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. It is followed in Chapter 2 by an outline of the current state of research in pre-emptive psychiatry. I argue in Chapter 3 that the debate surrounding these new developments has missed an opportunity to discuss the ethical issues they raise in a constructive manner. Various conceptualisations of psychiatric vulnerability ought to be more clearly at the heart of this conversation. I explore in Chapter 4 the wide-ranging relevance of the concept of vulnerability in ethical theory, so as to explain in Chapter 5 how it can serve as the foundation of a normative approach that favours resilience and relational autonomy over outright protective responses to vulnerability. Consequently, I highlight in Chapter 6 the advantages of integrating more traditional nosologies into the larger framework of nonspecific staging models. I aim to show that, through fostering a greater focus on resilience rather than on diagnosis and treatment, hybrid diagnostic models promote a better management of the ethical issues associated with pre-emptive psychiatry. The main outcome of this project is a new framework for discussions regarding the ethics of pre-onset early detection and interventions in psychiatry, re-centring them around conceptualisations of vulnerability. Altogether, this dissertation shows how ethical concerns arise concretely in pre-emptive psychiatry, and defends its prospects for addressing them

Deliberative Democracy and Complex Diversity. From Discourse Ethics to the Theory of Argumentation.

362 p.Can democracy accommodate contemporary diverse and complex societies? Is deliberation an appropiate means for these ends? Even in the face of violent conflict? What is the role of citizens? The central objetive of this thesis is to critically analyse the relationsship between complex diversity (Tully 2008, Kraus 2012) and deliberatibe democracy /Habermas 1996) from a systemic perspective (Masnbrige and Parkinson 2012). Thinking identity as complex diversity detaches identity from dichotomous categorisations either as public of private, civic or ethnic and, moral or political

Beyond the Habitual: Legal Argument Upon the Use of Force and During the Conduct of Hostilities

This dissertation moves beyond traditional assessments of legal compliance. It offers a more complete understanding of how international law functions upon the use of force and during the conduct of hostilities. The dissertation consists of four case studies each presented and published as standalone articles that provide fuller descriptions of international laws efficacy within fraught international contexts. By moving beyond the common evaluative standard of compliance, this dissertation presents a pluralistic conception of international laws function and purpose. Accordingly, the first case study presents an account of the way that international humanitarian law is used to manage prolonged occupation. The second case study shows how the traditional language of legal legitimacy is being supplemented by states that now complement claims of legal compliance with assertions of investigative willingness. The third case study engages with the notion of lawfare and suggests that this term as become a means of limiting access to international justice. The fourth and final case study provides a communicative theory that describes the microprocesses that states employ when they use international law to argue and to advance military and diplomatic objectives. Collectively, these case studies understand international law as a multifunctional tool. They provide accounts of how international law functions, how it compels, how it facilitates, and how it is altered. Through a series of rhetorical moves the state identifies the forms of international law with which they adhere, it devalues or deflects certain obligations by accentuating others, it establishes and develops conceptions of international law with which it wishes to further, and it presents the resulting engagements as illustrative of a commitment to the international legal process and global order. This dissertation asks not whether states comply with international law but how they comply

High Crimes and Misconceptions: The ICC and Non-party States

The dilemma underlying the debate about the International Criminal Court\u27s jurisdiction over non-party nationals stems primarily from the conflicting needs for the ICC to have sufficient jurisdictional powers to bring to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and simultaneously, for states to retain appropriate discretion regarding methods of dispute settlement when the lawfulness of their official acts is in dispute

Negotiating Asylum

How is access to asylum and other forms of extraterritorial protection regulated in the European Union? Is the EU acquis in these areas in conformity with international law? Which tools does international law offer to solve collisions between both? And, finally, is law capable of bridging the foundational oppositions embedded in migration and asylum issues? This work combines the potential of legal formalism with an analytical framework drawing on political theory. It analyses the argumentative strategies used by international lawyers, and developed them further, exploiting the interpretative methodology of international law as well as elaborate discrimination arguments. The author concludes that deflecting protection seekers by means of visa requirements may constitute a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, and that the prescriptions of international law oblige Member States to apply the Dublin Convention and the Spanish Protocol in a manner emptying it of its main control functions. The author also shows that burden-sharing remains the pivotal element in the normative dynamics behind the EU acquis, and explains why the European Court of Human Rights must be regarded as the only transnational forum for the legitimate negotiation of asylum in Europe