On the Legitimacy of Economic Development Takings

For most governments, facilitating economic growth is a top priority. Sometimes, in their pursuit of this objective, governments interfere with private property. Often, they do so by indirect means, for instance through their power to regulate permitted land uses or by adjusting the tax code. However, many governments are also prepared to use their power of eminent domain in the pursuit of economic development. That is, they sometimes compel private owners to give up their property to make way for a new owner that is expected to put the property to a more economically profitable use. This thesis asks how the law should respond to government actions of this kind, often referred to as economic development takings. The thesis makes two main contributions in this regard. First, in Part I, it proposes a theoretical foundation for reasoning about the legitimacy of economic development takings, including an assessment of possible standards for judicial review. Moreover, the thesis links the legitimacy question to the work done by Elinor Ostrom and others on sustainable management of common pool resources. Specifically, it is argued that using institutions for local self-governance to manage development potentials as common pool resources can potentially undercut arguments in favour of using eminent domain for economic development. Then, in Part II, the thesis puts the theory to the test by considering takings of property for hydropower development in Norway. It is argued that current eminent domain practices appear illegitimate, according to the normative theory developed in Part I. At the same time, the Norwegian system of land consolidation offers an alternative to eminent domain that is already being used extensively to facilitate community-led hydropower projects. The thesis investigates this as an example of how to design self-governance arrangements to increase the democratic legitimacy of decision-making regarding property and economic development

Paraconsistent resolution

Digraphs provide an alternative syntax for propositional logic, with digraph kernels corresponding to classical models. Semikernels generalize kernels and we identify a subset of well-behaved semikernels that provides nontrivial models for inconsistent theories, specializing to the classical semantics for the consistent ones. Direct (instead of refutational) reasoning with classical resolution is sound and complete for this semantics, when augmented with a specific weakening which, in particular, excludes Ex Falso. Dropping all forms of weakening yields reasoning which also avoids typical fallacies of relevance

The legally mandated approximate language about AI

In light of the current explosion of application of machine learning in data analysis and inference, we examine a particular challenge raised by the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The challenge we address pertains particularly to the demand that analyses of a person's data must be comprehensible to that person. While there is a long tradition in viewing the world in terms of objects and properties in intuitive ways, recent decades have entertained a tension between more rule-based theories of mind (e.g., the Representational Theory of Mind) and more holistic approaches (e.g., Connectionism). While both approaches have merit, one seems to depart too much from a classical understanding of "knowing" to adequately satisfy the imminent legal reality, and the other seems to be incapable of adequately capturing modern data analysis (as of yet). As a solution to this predicament we propose a pragmatic compromise based on argumentation theory which seems to be able to provide a solid foundation in classical concepts, while at the same time permitting enthymematic presuppositions. We argue that developing a framework for explaining machine behavior in terms of abstract argumentation theory can address this dilemma -- provide sufficient expressivity while remaining true to established definitions of epistemology -- to satisfy the conditions of the GDPR and motivating concerns

Formell modellering av kravet til årsakssammenheng i norsk erstatningsrett

Vi formaliserer ulike tolkninger av kravet til a?rsakssammenheng i norsk erstat- ningsrett. Med dette viser vi at den rettslige definisjonen av en a?rsakssammen- heng kan forsta?s pa? mange ulike ma?ter, og at ulike forsta?elser kan presiseres ved hjelp av enkle formelle metoder. Et hovedpoeng er a? vise at formell modellering kan brukes til a? kaste lys over vanskelige problemstillinger som oppsta?r na?r vi skal ta stilling til skadelige hendelser med flere samvirkende a?rsaker