Juridical principles for juridical applications. The DERINFO methodology

  • Fernando Galindo
Conference paper


Recent experiences with object-oriented programming, using the resources of artificial intelligence (knowledge representation, logic programming, expert systems, and natural language comprehension) show that it is possible to implement juridical applications, i.e. programs to assist juridical activities. There are applications which are about to be commercialised or used by governments. It is now the task of the legal philosophers to decide to what point these applications can or should be used, so as not to deviate from their original object, or from the nature of the law,or the support of justice. This means involving the programmers who design such programs in the juridical principles which the applications must enhance and respect. This is the object of the DERINFO methodology.


Logic Programming Building Construction Civil Code Legal Text Future User 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    B. A. ACKERMAN, Del realismo al constructivismo jurtdico, Barcelona, 1988, pp. 145–150Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R.ALEXY, “Rechtssystem und praktische Vernunft”, in Rechtstheorie.,1987, pp. 407–417Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R.DWORKIN, Law’s Empire,Cambridge, 1986,p.410Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    F.GALINDO, “PIDCA, a methodological prototype to build legal software”, in III International Conference on Logica, Informatica, Diritto,vol. II, Florence,1989, pp. 419–438Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    F.GALINDO, “Jueces y Democracia. Criterion para una actividad judicial democratica”, in Anuario de Filosofia del Derecho,VII, 1990, pp. 147–167Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    K.GÜNTHER, “Ein normativer Begriff der Kohärenz für einer Theorie der juristischen Argumentation”, in Rechtstheorie,20, 1989, p. 189Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J.HABERMAS, Nachmetaphysisches Denken,Frankfurt, 1988, pp. 179–186Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    D.KENNEDY, “The Structure of Blackstone’s Commentaries”, in Buffalo Law Review,28, 1979, pp. 211–213Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    L.LOMBARDI VALLAURI, “Informatics and ‘political’ or ‘value’ criteria of the legal decision”, in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Information Systems,I, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 61–72Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    L.LOMBARDI VALLAURI, “Jurisprudence”, in Archives de Philosophie du Droit,35, 1990, pp. 191–209Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R.NOZÌCK, Anarquta, Estado y Utopia,México, 1988, p. 154ssGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    F.OST, M. van de KERCHOVE, Entre la lettre et l’esprit, Bruxelles, 1989, pp. 3–13Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    C.PERELMAN, Ethique et droit,Bruxelles, 1990, pp. 675–680Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M.J.PERRY, Morality Politics & Lato,Oxford, 1988, pp. 180–184Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J.RAWLS, Justicia como equidad. Materiales para una teoria de la justicia,Madrid, 1986, p. 189 Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    T.SCHLAPP, Theorienstrukturen und Rechtsdogmatik. Ansätze zu einer strukturistischen Theorienbildung, Berlin, 1989, p. 215Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    G.TEUBNER, Recht als autopoietisches System,Frankfurt, pp. 149sGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando Galindo
    • 1
  1. 1.Seminario de Informática y DerechoUniversidad de ZaragozaEspaña

Personalised recommendations