Detection and resolution of normative conflicts in multi-agent systems : a literature survey

Peer reviewedPostprin

OWL-POLAR : A Framework for Semantic Policy Representation and Reasoning

Peer reviewedPreprin

Alienating justice: on the social surplus value of the twelfth camel

Deutsche Fassung: Rechtsentfremdungen: Zum gesellschaftlichen Mehrwert des zwölften Kamels. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 21, 2000, 189-215 und in Gunther Teubner (Hg.) Die Rückgabe des zwölften Kamels: Niklas Luhmann in der Diskussion über Gerechtigkeit. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2000, 189-215. Französische Fassung: Les multiples aliénations du droit : Sur la plus-value sociale du douzième chameau. Droit et Société 47, 2001, 75-100. Polnische Fassung: Sprawiedliwosc alienujaca : O dodatkowej wartosci dwunastego wielblada. Ius et Lex 1, 2002, 109-132. Italienische Fassung: Le molteplici alienazioni del diritto : Sul plusvalore sociale del dodicesimo camello. In: Annamaria Rufino und Gunther Teubner, Il diritto possibile: Funzioni e prospettive del medium giuridico. Guerini, Milano, 2005, 93-130

Ethical decision-making, passivity and pharmacy

Background: Increasing interest in empirical ethics has enhanced understanding of healthcare professionals' ethical problems and attendant decision-making. A four-stage decision-making model involving ethical attention, reasoning, intention and action offers further insights into how more than reasoning alone may contribute to decision-making. Aims: To explore how the four-stage model can increase understanding of decision-making in healthcare and describe the decision-making of an under-researched professional group. Methods: 23 purposively sampled UK community pharmacists were asked, in semi-structured interviews, to describe ethical problems in their work and how they were resolved. Framework analysis of transcribed interviews utilised the four decision-making stages, together with constant comparative methods and deviant-case analysis. Results: Pharmacists were often inattentive and constructed problems in legal terms. Ethical reasoning was limited, but examples of appeals to consequences, the golden rule, religious faith and common-sense experience emerged. Ethical intention was compromised by frequent concern about legal prosecution. Ethical inaction was common, typified by pharmacists' failure to report healthcare professionals' bad practices, and ethical passivity emerged to describe these negative examples of the four decision-making stages. Pharmacists occasionally described more ethically active decision-making, but this often involved ethical uncertainty. Discussion: The four decision-making stages are a useful tool in considering how healthcare professionals try to resolve ethical problems in practice. They reveal processes often ignored in normative theories, and their recognition and the emergence of ethical passivity indicates the complexity of decision-making in practice. Ethical passivity may be deleterious to patients' welfare, and concerns emerge about improving pharmacists' ethical training and promoting ethical awareness and responsibility

Determining hierarchy between conflicting treaties: are there vertical rules in the horizontal system?

Treaties are contractual instruments that may provide special rules of priority in case they conflict with other treaties. When a treaty does not provide such rules, however, priority is determined by the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and/or general principles of law. This article argues that both the VCLT and general principles of law do not provide an adequate solution to treaty conflicts. It suggests that the solution to treaty conflicts rests in a value-oriented reading of international law and the norms incorporated in treaties. Norms represent values and values represent interests or benefits for which international society requires protection. Conflicts of treaty norms are, therefore, conflicts of values that courts and dispute settlement bodies resolve by ordering a hierarchy of competing interests and protecting the most important interests in a given context

In defense of exclusionary reasons

Exclusionary defeat is Joseph Raz’s proposal for understanding the more complex, layered structure of practical reasoning. Exclusionary reasons are widely appealed to in legal theory and consistently arise in many other areas of philosophy. They have also been subject to a variety of challenges. I propose a new account of exclusionary reasons based on their justificatory role, rejecting Raz’s motivational account and especially contrasting exclusion with undercutting defeat. I explain the appeal and coherence of exclusionary reasons by appeal to commonsense value pluralism and the intermediate space of public policies, social roles, and organizations. We often want our choices to have a certain character or instantiate a certain value and in order to do so, that choice can only be based on a restricted set of reasons. Exclusion explains how pro tanto practical reasons can be disqualified from counting towards a choice of a particular kind without being outweighed or undercut