nach oben

Erschienen in:

2013 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Agreement and Relational Justice: A Perspective from Philosophy and Sociology of Law

verfasst von : Pompeu Casanovas

Erschienen in: Agreement Technologies

Verlag: Springer Netherlands

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Relationships between empirical and philosophical approaches to the law have not been always peaceful. Agreement seems the most natural way to build up and implement regulations and justice within human-machine interfaces (natural and artificial societies), and might help to bridge the gap between both theoretical approaches. Recent researches on relational law, relational justice, crowdsourcing, regulatory systems and regulatory models are introduced. These concepts need further clarification, but they stand as political companions to more standard conceptions of law in the Semantic Web.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Agreement Technologies: A Computing Perspective

Nächstes Kapitel Agreements as the Grease (Not the Glue) of Society: A Cognitive and Social Science Perspective

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/agreement

(I) Agreement as concurrence: accord, amity, arrangement, assent, common assent, common consent, common view, community of interests, concord, conformance, congruence, congruency, congruity, consent, consentaneity, consentaneousness, consentience, consonance, cooperation, good understanding, harmony, meeting of the minds, mutual assent, mutual promise, mutual understanding, oneness, reciprocity of obligation, settlement, unanimity, understanding, uniformity, unison, unity. (II) Agreement as contract: alliance, arrangement, bargain, binding promise, bond, commitment, compact, concordat, concordia, contractual statement, convention, covenant, deal, engagement, legal document, mutual pledge, obligation, pact, pledge, settlement, transaction, understanding, undertaking.

In the Common Law consideration is the correlative of causa in the Civil Law. “Something of value given by both parties to a contract that induces them to enter into the agreement to exchange mutual performances.” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

But see the warning by MacCormack (1969) on going too far in the “magical” interpretation of law in pre-modern societies

Cf. Radin (1937). The Institutes of Justinian (III, 13) divided obligations “into four species”; ex contractu, quasiex contractu; ex maleficio, quasi ex maleficio, i.e. contract, quasicontract; tort, quasi-tort. Gaius, (about 150 A.D.) listed only contract, tort and an unclassifiable miscellaneous group, ex variis causarum figuris.

“There is in reality no definable ‘doctrine’ of causa. The term ‘causa’ includes a variety of notions which may equally well be derived from the nature of a juristic act and from considerations of equity” (Lorenzen 1919). See also Orestano (1989).

The Traité des Loix is the preface of Les lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel (1689), in which Domat equated Roman and Civil Law with rational order and with Christian principles. Law is Raison écrite.

See the intellectual and personal genealogy from Domat (16th c.), Pothier (17th c.), and the nine drafters of the Civile Code (19th c.) in Arnaud (1973). See also Tarello (1978).

I have developed this subject in Casanovas (2010). For a specific study on the transformation of humanist dialectics and rhetoric in 16th c. and 17th c., cf. Ong (1958) and Fumaroli (1980).

“The fictiousness of this definition of the concept of the subject of law is apparent. (…). The legal determination ultimately originates in the objective law and not in the legal subjects subordinated to it. Consequently there is no full self-determination even in private law.” (Kelsen 1967: 170–171; see 258 as well)

The interested reader is invited to follow the late formulation of the argument in Ross (1968): “Directives which are impersonal and heteronomous-autonomous include the rule of games and similar arrangements grounded on agreements.”

Eng (2011) recalls that in Ross’ theory, the term gældende ret refers to “(i) normative meaning-content in the form of directives (ii) that have the property of being part of the judge’s motivation when he is reaching a decision in the case at hand”.

In Ross’s theory, sources of law “are understood to mean the aggregate of factors which exercises influence on the judge’s formulation, of the rule on which he bases his decision.” (Ross 1959)

According to Hart, “the observer may, without accepting the rules himself, assert that the group accepts the rules, and thus may from outside refer to the way in which they are concerned with them from the internal point of view.” (Hart 1960)

“[…] I am not going to attempt a definition of law. (…). I have no desire to exclude anything from matters legal. (…). I shall instead devote my attention to the focus of matters legal. I shall try to discuss a point of reference; a point of reference to which I believe all matters legal can most usefully be referred.” (Llewellyn 1930a)

As Breen (2000) puts forward, under the Code: (i) “the context of an agreement – the unspoken background of beliefs and understandings formed by repetition within an industry and familiarity among individuals, which are taken for granted by the parties involved – becomes central to the meaning of the contract. Contextual evidence is thus fully recognized as an ‘effective part’ of the agreement itself.” (ii) Art. 2 states that “the meaning of a written agreement is determined not only by the language used by [the parties] but also by their action[s], read and interpreted in the light of commercial practices and other surrounding circumstances” (U.C.C. Id. § 1–205 cmt. 1.).

‘Relational’ has been applied not only to contracts but to sovereignty (Stacey 2003), rights (Minow and Shandley 1996), copyright (Craig 2011), governance (Zeng et al. 2008; Chelariu and Sangtani 2009), and conflicts (Wallenburg and Raue 2011), broadening up the field from private law to the public domain.

MacNeil (1983) distinguishes five relational norms – role integrity, preservation of the relation, harmonization of relational conflict, propriety of means, and supracontract norms.

A regulatory system can be a broad social system, with several groups, networks and professional people involved. It can be described and explained by means of statistical measures (using social indicators e.g.) and qualitative methods. We had the opportunity, e.g., to describe the social system of mediation in Catalonia. Results are available in Catalan and Spanish at http://www.llibreblancmediacio.com. Chapter 16 of the Spanish version contains the state the art of ODR (years 2008–2009, Poblet et al. 2011), and the prototype of an electronic institution for mediation (developed by Noriega et al. (2010)).

I prefer to maintain separate interoperativity (referred to human coordinated or collective behaviour to team up) and interoperability (compatibility of computer languages).

Abizabeh, A. 2011. Hobbes on the causes of war: A disagreement theory. The American Political Science Review 105(2): 298–315.CrossRef

Arnaud, A. J. 1973. Essai d’analyse structurale du Code Civil français. La règle du jeu dans la paix bourgeoise. Préf. de Michel Villey. Postface de Georges Mounin, LGD, Paris.

Black, O. 2007. Two theories of agreement. Legal Theory 13: 1–22.CrossRef

Blair, A. 2006–2007. You don’t have to be Ludwig Wittgenstein: How Lewellyn’s concept of agreement should change the law of open-quantity contracts. Seton Hall Law Review 37: 67–126.

Blois, K., and B. Ivens. 2006. Measuring relational norms: Some methodological issues. European Journal of Marketing 40(3/4): 352–365.CrossRef

Blumberg, P. I. 2005. The Transformation of modern corporation law: The law of corporate groups. Connecticut Law Review 37: 605–615.

Brandom, R. B. (Pritzlaff, T.) 2008. Freedom is a matter of responsibility and authority: An interview with Robert B. Brandom. European Journal of Political Theory 7(3): 365–381.

Breen, J. M. 2000. Statutory interpretations and the lessons of Llewellyn. Loyola Law Review 33: 263–451.

Cameron, K. 2005. The laws of identity …as of 5/11/2005. Microsoft Corp.

Campbell, D. 2001. The relational theory of contract: Selected works of Ian MacNeil. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Cannon, J. P., R. S. Achrol, and G. T. Gundlach. 2012. Contracts, norms, and plural form governance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(2): 180–194.CrossRef

Casanovas, P. 2002. Dimensiones del pluralismo jurídico. In IX Congreso Internacional de Antropología. Barcelona: FAAEE.

Casanovas, P. 2010. Legal electronic institutions and ONTOMEDIA: Dialogue, inventio, and relational justice scenarios. In AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems (AICOL I–II). LNAI, vol. 6237, ed. P. Casanovas, U. Pagallo, G. Sartor, and G. Ajani, 184–204. Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.

Casanovas, P., and M. Poblet. 2008. Concepts and fields of relational justice. In Computable Models of the Law: Languages, Dialogue, Games, Ontologies. LNAI, vol. 4884, ed. P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, N. Casellas and R. Rubino, 323–342. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

Casanovas, P., and M. Poblet. 2009. The future of law: Relational law and next generation of web services. In The future of law and technology: Looking into the future, Selected Essays, ed. M. Fernández-Barrera, et al., 137–156. Florence: European Press Academic Publishing.

Casanovas, P., and M. Poblet, et al. 2012. D WP7.1. EU Project CAPER. http://www.fp7-caper.eu/.

Castelfranchi, C. 2003. Grounding we-intentions in individual social attitudes. In Realism in action, Essays in the Philosophy of Social Sciences, ed. M. Sintonen, P. Yliskoski, and K. Miller, 195–213. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Chaigneau, S., E. Canessa, and J. Gaete. 2012. Conceptual agreement theory. New Ideas in Psychology 30: 179–189.CrossRef

Chelariu, C., and V. Sangtani. 2009. Relational governance in B2B electronic marketplaces: An updated typology. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 24(2): 108–118.CrossRef

Craig, C. J. 2011. Copyright, communication and culture: Towards a relational theory of copyright law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Davies, J. 2011. From crowdsourcing to crowdservicing. IEEE Internet Computing 15(3): 92–94.CrossRef

D’Aquin M., E. Motta, M. Sabou, S. Angeletou, L. Gridinoc, V. Lopez, and D. Guidi. 2008. Toward a new Generation of Semantic Web Applications. IEEE Intelligent Systems (23)3: 20–28.

Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s empire. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Endicott, T. A. O. 1998. Herbert Hart and the semantic sting. Legal Theory 4: 283–300.CrossRef

Eng, S. 2011. Lost in the system or lost in translation? The exchanges between Hart and Ross. Ratio Juris 24(2): 194–246.CrossRef

Fischer, T., T. Huber, and J. Dibbern. 2011. Contractual and relational governance as substitutes and complements – explaining the development of differential relationships. In: The 19th European Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland. Reprinted in: Theory-guided modeling and empiricism in information systems research, ed. A. Heinzl, O. Wendt, and T. Weitzel, 65–84. Physica-Verlag: Heidelberg.

Fogelin, R. J. 1985. The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic 7(1): 1–8.

Fumaroli, M. 1980. L’Âge de l’éloquence: rhétorique et res literaria de la Renaissance au seuil de l’époque classique. Paris: Droz.

Glachant, M. 2007. Non-binding voluntary agreements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54: 32–48.CrossRefMATH

Gundlach, G. T., R. S. Achrol, and J. T. Mentzer. 1995. The structure of commitment in exchange. Journal of Marketing 59(1): 78–93.CrossRef

Hart, H. L. A. 1960. In The concept of law, second edition, 1994, with a postcript, ed. P. A. Bulloch and J. Raz. Oxford: Oxford University.

Hendler, J. 2009. Web 3.0 emerging. IEEE Computer 42(1): 111–113.

Johar, G. T. 2005. The price of friendship: When, why, and how relational norms guide social exchange behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 15(1): 22–27.CrossRef

Kelsen, H. 1967. The pure theory of law. Trans. M. Knight, 1960. Berkeley: University of California.

Karlsson, M. 2010. What does it take to make online deliberation happen? – A comparative analysis of 28 online discussion forums. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on online deliberation, Leeds, 30 June–2 July, ed. F. De Cindio, A. Macintosh, and C. Peraboni, 142–156.

Lederach, J. P. 2005. The moral imagination: The art and soul of making peace. Oxford: Oxford University.

List, C. 2007. Deliberation and agreement. In Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can the people govern?, ed. Shawn W. Rosenberg, 64–81. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lodder, A., and J. Zeleznikow. 2010. Enhanced dispute resolution through the use of information technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRef

Lorenzen, E. G. 1919. Causa and consideration in the law of contracts. The Yale Law Journal 28(7): 621–646.CrossRef

Llewellyn, K. N. 1930a. A realistic jurisprudence – The next step. Columbia Law Review 30(4): 431–465.CrossRef

Llewellyn, K. N. 1930b. The bramble bush: On our law and its study. New York: Columbia University Press.

Llewellyn, K. N. 1931. What price contract? An essay in perspective. The Yale Law Journal 40(5): 704–751.CrossRef

Llewellyn, K. N. 2011. The theory of rules, ed. F. Schauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Macauley, S. 1963. Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study. American Sociological Review 28: 55–67.CrossRef

MacCormack, G. 1969. Formalism, symbolism, and magic in early Roman law. Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 37: 439–468.

MacNeil, I. R. 1974. The many futures of contract. Southern California Law Review 47: 691–896.

MacNeil I. R. 1983. Values in contract: Internal and external. University of Northwestern Law Review 79: 340–418.

MacNeil I. R. 1985. Relational contract: What we do and do not know. Wisconsin Law Review 3: 483–525.

MacNeil, I. R. 2001. The relational theory of contract, ed. David Campbell. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

McAdams, R. H. 2010. Resentment, excuse and norms. In The hart-fuller debate in the twenty-first century, ed. P. Cane, 249–257. Hart: Oxford/Portland.

Mellinkoff, D. 1963. The language of the law. Boston: Little Brown.

Minow, M., and M. L. Shandley. 1996. Relational rights and responsibilities: Revisioning the family in liberal political theory and law, hypathia. Journal of Feminist Philosophy 11(1): 4–29.CrossRef

Noriega, P., et al. 2010. Prototipo de institución electrónica de mediación. In Poblet, M. et al. Tecnologías para la mediación en línea: estado del arte, usos y propuestas. In Libro Blanco de la Mediación en Cataluña, ed. P. Casanovas, J. Magre, and E. Lauroba. Barcelona: Department Justicia-Huygens.

Ong, W. 1958. Ramus, method, and the decay of dialogue: From the art of discourse to the art of reason. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Orestano, R. 1989. Edificazione del Giuridico. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Ossowski, S., C. Sierra, and V. Botti. 2012. Agreement technologies – A computing perspective (in this volume, Chap. 1).

Ott, C. M., and B. Ivens. 2009. Revisiting the norm concept in relational governance. Industrial Marketing Management 38: 577–583.CrossRef

Ottonelli, V., and D. Porello. 2012. On the elusive notion of meta-agreement. Politics Philosophy Economics March 29, 2012 1470594X11433742 (forthcoming, published online).

Paglieri, F. 2012. Agreements as the Grease (not the glue) of society – A cognitive and social science perspective (in this volume, Chap. 3).

Pattaro, E. 2010. I will tell you about Axel Hägerström: His ontology and theory of judgment. Ratio Juris 23(1): 123–156.CrossRef

Patterson, D. M. 1989. Good faith, lender liability, and discretionary acceleration: Of Llewellyn, Wittgenstein, and the uniform commercial code. Texas Law Review 68: 169–211.

Petrie, C. 2010. Plenty of room outside the firm. IEEE Internet Computing 14(1): 92–95.MathSciNetCrossRef

Pettit, P. 2010. How norms become normative. In The hart-fuller debate in the twenty-first century, ed. P. Cane, 227–247. Oxford/Portland: Hart.

Poblet, M., P. Noriega, J. Suquet, S. Gabarró, and J. Redorta. 2011. Tecnologías para la mediación en línea: estado del arte, usos y propuestas. In Libro Blanco de la Mediación en Cataluña, ed. P. Casanovas, J. Magre, and E. Lauroba, 943–1008. Barcelona: Department Justicia-Huygens.

Polleres, A. Agreement technologies and the semantic web (in this volume, Chap. 4).

Poppo, L., and T. Zenger. 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal 23: 707–725.CrossRef

Pound, R. 1917. The end of law as developed in juristic thought II. Harvard Law Review 30(3): 201–225.CrossRef

Pound R. 1921. The spirit of the common law. Francestown: Marshall Jones.

Radin, M. 1937. The Roman law of quasi-contract. Virginia Law Review 37(3): 241–255.CrossRef

Raz, J. 2001. Two views of the nature of the theory of law. In Hart’s postcript, Essays on the postcript to the concept of law, ed. J. L. Coleman, 1–37. Oxford: Oxford University.

Rescher, N. 1978. Philosophical disagreement. Review of Metaphysics 32(2): 217–251.

Ross, A. 1946. Towards a realistic jurisprudence: A criticism of the dualism in law. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.

Ross, A. 1957. Tû-Tû. Harvard Law Review 70(5): 812–882.

Ross, A. 1959. On law and justice. Berkeley: Berkeley University.

Ross, A. 1968. Directives and norms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Ross, A. 2011. The 25th anniversary of the pure theory of law (1935). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 31(2): 243–272.CrossRef

Sartor, G. 2008. Legal validity: An inferential analysis. Ratio Juris 21(2): 212–247.CrossRef

Sartor, G. 2009a. Understanding and applying legal concepts: An inquiry on inferential meaning. In Concepts in law, ed. J. C. Hage and D. von der Pfordten, 35–54. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef

Sartor, G. 2009b. Legal concepts as inferential nodes and ontological categories. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17: 217–251.CrossRef

Srivastava, P., S. Singh, A. Pinto, S. Verma, V. K. Chaurasiya, and R. Gupta. 2011. An architecture based on proactive model for security in cloud computing. In Proceedings of the IEEE-ICRTIT, MIT, Anna University, Chennai, 661–666.

Stacey, H. 2003. Relational sovereignty. Stanford Law Review 55(5): 2029–2059.

Steels, L. 2006. Semiotic dynamics for embodied agents. IEEE 21(3): 32–38.

Stromer-Galley, J., and P. Muhlberger. 2009. Agreement and disagreement in group deliberation: Effects on deliberation satisfaction. Future Engagement, and Decision Legitimacy, Political Communication 26: 173–192.

Sunstein, C. R. 1994. Political conflict and legal agreement, the tanner lectures on human values, Harvard University, November 29th, December 1st. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 17(1996): 137–249.

Tarello, G. 1978. Storia della cultura giuridica moderna. Assolutismo e codificazione del diritto. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Trubek, D. M., Y. Dézalay, R. Buchanan, and J. R. Davis (1994). Global restructuring and the law: Studies of the internationalization of legal fields and the creation of transnational Arenas. Case Western Reserve Law Review 44(2): 407–498.

Tuomela, R. 2007. The philosophy of sociality: The shared point of view. Oxford: Oxford University.

Valente, A., and J. Breuker. 1994. Ontologies: The missing link between legal theory and AI & law. In Legal knowledge based systems JURIX 94: The foundation for legal knowledge systems, ed. A. Soeteman, 38–150. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande.

Wallenburg, C., and J. S. Raue. 2011. Conflict and its governance in horizontal cooperations of logistics service providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 41(4): 385–400.CrossRef

Watson, A. 1989. Artificiality, reality and Roman contract law. Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis [Legal History Review] 7, − 2(1989): 147–156.

Zeng, J., J. K. Roehrich, and M. A. Lewis. 2008. The dynamics of contractual and relational governance: Evidence from long-term public-private procurement arrangement. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 14: 43–54.CrossRef

Titel: Agreement and Relational Justice: A Perspective from Philosophy and Sociology of Law
verfasst von: Pompeu Casanovas
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Buch: Agreement Technologies
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5582-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-007-5583-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2013
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5583-3_2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"