Representation results for defeasible logic
ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
Measurement of Compliance Distance in Business Processes
Information Systems Management
Modeling control objectives for business process compliance
BPM'07 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Business process management
Value-based argumentation for justifying compliance
DEON'10 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Deontic logic in computer science
Towards a lean-government using new IT-architectures for compliance monitoring
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
Value-based argumentation for justifying compliance
Artificial Intelligence and Law - Special issue on Deontic Logic and Normative Systems
Managing legal interpretation in regulatory compliance
Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Value-based argumentation for designing and auditing security measures
Ethics and Information Technology
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
There is an ongoing debate in law and accounting about the relative merits of principle-based versus rule-based regulatory systems. In this paper we characterize what kind of reasoning underlies the two styles of regulation. We adapt an original account of Verheij et al. (1998) to take aspects of the implementation context into account, such as the process of adoption of a new norm and the roles of the participants. The model is validated by a comparison between EU and US customs regulations intended to enhance safety and security in international trade. The EU regulations (AEO self-assessment) are essentially principle-based, whereas the American system (C-TPAT) is rule-based.