Código en el sistema de actos jurídicos reglamentarios alternativos: un asunto prioritario

Modern practical jurisprudence faces many difficulties caused by inconsistencies in the current legislation. This problem concern the collision between codified and special legislation. We have formed a unified approach to solving the conflict of norms of codes and other federal laws with the help of general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, and analogy), and special, private scientific methods (formal legal, functional methods, and method of legal modeling). We have formulated a collision rule according to which the norm of a special law takes precedence over the norm of an ordinary law (including codified one). Mentioning or not mentioning the code about the admissibility of the adoption of a special law in a particular case has no legal significance. We believe that the thesis that the codified act automatically acquires increased legal force in relation to uncodified laws, which is widespread in modern science, should be recognized as incorrect.La jurisprudencia práctica moderna enfrenta muchas dificultades causadas por inconsistencias en la legislación actual. Este problema se refiere a la colisión entre la legislación codificada y especial. Hemos formado un enfoque unificado para resolver el conflicto de normas de códigos y otras leyes federales con la ayuda de métodos científicos generales (análisis, síntesis y analogía), y métodos científicos privados especiales (métodos formales legales, funcionales y métodos de modelado legal). Hemos formulado una regla de colisión según la cual la norma de una ley especial tiene prioridad sobre la norma de una ley ordinaria (incluida una codificada). Mencionar o no mencionar el código sobre la admisibilidad de la adopción de una ley especial en un caso particular no tiene importancia legal. Creemos que la tesis de que el acto codificado adquiere automáticamente una mayor fuerza legal en relación con las leyes no codificadas, que está muy extendida en la ciencia moderna, debe reconocerse como incorrecta

Modelling Dialogues for Optimal Legislation

International audienceThis paper presents a framework for modelling legislative deliberation in the form of dialogues. Roughly, in legislative dialogues coalitions can dynamically change and propose rule-based theories associated with different utility functions, depending on the legislative theory the coalitions are trying to determine. CCS CONCEPTS • Applied computing → Law, social and behavioral sciences; Law

Larangan Penyitaan Aset Lembaga Pengelola Investasi Dalam Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja

The conflict of norms that occurred between of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation and Law Number 1 of 2004 concerning the State Treasury and the settlement mechanism. This study uses a normative juridical research method. The results of the study show that there are several indicators that form the basis for the occurrence of norm conflicts. The source of LPI assets is an inseparable part of state property and the laws and regulations that govern it and there is no antecedent that limits state property as assets that are excluded from being subject to confiscation, as well as the payment mechanism with confiscation of state assets contrary to the ratio decidendi of the judge in Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-VII/2009.Konflik norma yang terjadi antara Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2020 tentang Cipta Kerja dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2004 tentang Perbendaharaan Negara dan mekanisme penyelesaiannya. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa ada beberapa indikator yang menjadi dasar penyebab terjadinya konflik norma. Sumber aset LPI merupakan bagian yang tak terpisahkan dari barang milik negara beserta peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengaturnya dan tidak terdapatnya anteseden yang membatasi barang milik negara sebagai aset yang dikecualikan untuk dapat dilakukan penyitaan, serta mekanisme pembayaran dengan penyitaan aset negara bertentangan dengan ratio decidendi hakim dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 25/PUU-VII/2009

Explaining Legal Concepts with Augmented Large Language Models (GPT-4)

Interpreting the meaning of legal open-textured terms is a key task of legal professionals. An important source for this interpretation is how the term was applied in previous court cases. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of GPT-4 in generating factually accurate, clear and relevant explanations of terms in legislation. We compare the performance of a baseline setup, where GPT-4 is directly asked to explain a legal term, to an augmented approach, where a legal information retrieval module is used to provide relevant context to the model, in the form of sentences from case law. We found that the direct application of GPT-4 yields explanations that appear to be of very high quality on their surface. However, detailed analysis uncovered limitations in terms of the factual accuracy of the explanations. Further, we found that the augmentation leads to improved quality, and appears to eliminate the issue of hallucination, where models invent incorrect statements. These findings open the door to the building of systems that can autonomously retrieve relevant sentences from case law and condense them into a useful explanation for legal scholars, educators or practicing lawyers alike

Polish jurisprudence in a crooked mirror : (a polemic with Tomasz Bekrycht and Rafał Mańko)

Artykuł zawiera krytykę obrazu dwudziestowiecznej teorii i filozofii prawa, jaki przedstawili Tomasz Bekrycht i Rafał Mańko w artykule pt. Polish Jurisprudence in the 20th Century: A General Overview, opublikowanym na łamach Review of Central and East European Law (2020, nr 45). Argumentujemy, że wskazany artykuł nie jest niewyważony i stronniczy, w związku z czym przedstawia nietrafny obraz polskiej teorii i filozofii prawa

Формализация споров о законодательных инициативах в виде практического рассуждения

In this paper the ASPIC+ framework for argumentation-based inference is used for formally reconstructing two legal debates about law-making proposal: an opinion of a legal scholar on a Dutch legislative proposal and a US common-law judicial decision on whether an existing common law rule should be followed or distinguished. Both debates are formalized as practical reasoning, with versions of the argument schemes from good and bad consequences. These case studies aim to contribute to an understanding of the logical structure of debates about law-making proposals. Another aim of the case studies is to provide new benchmark examples for comparing alternative formal frameworks for modelling argumentation. In particular, this paper aims to illustrate the usefulness of two features of ASPIC+: its distinctions between deductive and defeasible inference rules and its ability to express arbitrary preference orderings on arguments.В этой статье структура ASPIC+ для аргументационного вывода используется для формальной реконструкции двух дискуссий о законодательных инициативах: позиции правоведа по поводу одного голландского законопроекта и решения общегражданского суда США о том, надлежит ли вынести постановление на основе существующей нормы или необходимо выделить в ней исключения. Обе дискуссии формализованы как практические рассуждения на основе версий использования схемы от позитивных и негативных последствий. Эти два случая вносят вклад в понимание логической структуры дискуссий о законодательных инициативах. Другая цель исследования этих двух случаев — сформулировать новые показательные примеры в целях сравнения альтернативных формальных структур для моделирования аргументации. В частности, эта статья нацелена на то, чтобы проиллюстрировать полезность двух характеристик структуры ASPIC+: возможность различать между дедуктивными и отменяемыми правилами и возможность выразить произвольные упорядочивания аргументов на основе отношения предпочтения