Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorANDRIGHETTO, Giulia
dc.contributor.authorCONTE, Rosaria
dc.contributor.authorMAYOR, Eunate
dc.contributor.authorSARTOR, Giovanni
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T10:23:04Z
dc.date.available2014-03-14T10:23:04Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationArtificial Intelligence and Law, 2012, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 335-337en
dc.identifier.issn0924-8463
dc.identifier.issn1572-8382
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/30337
dc.description.abstractAre we satisfied with current approaches to the study of norms? Unfortunately not, as a number of questions are still open.First, a major dichotomy can be observed in the scientific treatment of norms. Theories of norms are grounded on two, unrelated notions, regularities and prescriptions. On the one hand, social scientists view norms as regularities of behaviour, supported by social expectations and possibly enforced through sanctions. On the other hand, philosophers of law and logicians focus on norms as prescriptions issued by definite authorities and enforced though institutional sanctions. Hence, a first set of questions pertaining to the connection between social norms and institutionalised laws comes forth. How can we distinguish normative behaviour (both social and legal) from normal conduct on the one hand and acquiescence under menace on the other? What are commonalities and differences between social conventions and institutional prescriptions?en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofArtificial Intelligence and Lawen
dc.titleIntroduction to the special issue : simulation, norms and lawsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10506-012-9138-3
dc.identifier.volume20en
dc.identifier.startpage335en
dc.identifier.endpage337en
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
dc.identifier.issue4en


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record