Intelligent systems to support deliberative democracy in environmental regulation

Information and Communications Technology Law

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 79-89

  McBurney, Peter ^a   Parsons, Simon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870364243     PISSN: 13600834     EISSN: 14698404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13600830123217     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alexy, R., 1990. “ A theory of practical discourse ”. In The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Edited by: Benhabib, S., and Dallmayr, F., 151–190. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Published in German 1978)
2. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., and Parsons, S., Modelling dialogues using argumentation. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. Edited by: Durfee, E., pp. 31–38. Boston, MA: IEEE Press. (ICMAS 2000)
3. Besserte, J., 1980. “ Deliberative democracy: The majority principle in republican government ”. In How Democratic is the Constitution?, Edited by: Goldwin, R.A., and Schambra, W.A., 102–116. Washington, DC: AEI.
4. Bhattachary, D., 1998. Environmental values: a critical appraisal of cost-benefit analysis and discursive forms of decision-making, Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Environment, Ethics and Society, Mansfield College. Report
5. Bohman, J., and Rehg, W., eds. 1997. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Christiano, T., 1997. “ The significance of public deliberation ”. In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, Edited by: Bohman, J., and Rehg, W., 243–277. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Ess, C., 1997. “ The political computer: democracy, CMC, and Habermas ”. In Philosophical Perspectives on Computer-Mediated Communication, Edited by: Ess, C., 197–230. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
8. Fairhead, J., and Leach, M., 1998. Reframing Deforestation: Global Analysis and Local Realities: Studies in West Africa, London: Routledge.
9. Fox, J., and Parsons, S., 1998. “ Arguing about beliefs and actions ”. In Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, Edited by: Hunter, A., and Parsons, S., 266–302. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. (LNAI 1455)
10. Girle, R., Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., and Verheij, B., Decision support for practical reasoning: a theoretical and computational perspective. Bonskeid Symposium on Argument and Computation. Edited by: Reed, C., and Norman, T., (in press)
11. Gordon, T.F., and Karacapilidis, N., The Zeno argumentation framework. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law. pp. 10–18. New York: ACM Press.
12. Graham, J.D., Green, L.C., and Roberts, M.J., 1988. In Search of Safety: Chemicals and Cancer Risk, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Habermas, J., 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Volume 1, London: Heinemann. (Published in German 1981)
14. Habermas, J., 1991. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Published in German 1983)
15. Habermas, J., 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Published in German 1992)
16. Habermas, J., 1998. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, Edited by: Cronin, C., and De Greift, P., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Keeney, R.L., 1996. The role of values in risk management. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545: 126–134.
18. Krause, P., Fox, J., Judson, P., and Patel, M., 1998. “ Qualitative risk assessment fulfils a need ”. In Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms, Edited by: Hunter, A., and Parsons, S., 138–156. Berlin: Germany Springer Verlag. (LNAI 1455)
19. Lancet Editorial. 1999. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Lancet, 353 29 May: 9167
20. McBurney, P., and Parsons, S., Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2000). Edited by: Boutilier, C., and Goldszmidt, M., pp. 371–379. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
21. Michelman, F.I., 1989. Conceptions of democracy in American Constitutional argument: the case of pornography regulation. Tennessee Law Review, 56: 291–319.
22. Page, T., 1978. A generic view of toxic chemicals and similar risks. Ecology Law Quarterly, 7: 207–244.
23. Faisons, S., and Green, S., Argumentation and qualitative decision making. The Fifth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (ECSQARU99). Edited by: Hunter, A., and Parsons, S., pp. 328–339. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. (LNAI 1638)
24. Fera, M., 1994. The Discourses of Science, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25. Pollak, R.A., 1996. Government risk regulation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545: 25–34.
26. Rhomberg, L.R., 1997. A survey of methods for chemical health risk assessment among Federal regulatory agencies. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 3: 1029–1196.
27. Rittel, H.WJ., and Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4: 155–169.
28. Searle, J., 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Shere, M.E., 1995. The myth of meaningful environmental risk assessment. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 19: 409–492.
30. Stirling, A., and Mayer, S., 1999. Rethinking Risk: A Pilot Multi-Criteria Mapping of a Genetically Modified Crop in Agricultural Systems in the UK, Brighton, UK: University of Sussex. Report, SPRU
31. Teff, H., and Munro, C.R., 1976. Thalidomide: The Legal Aftermath, Westmead, Farnborough, Hampshire, UK: Saxon House.
32. Toll, J.E., 1999. Elements of environmental problem-solving. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5: 275–280.
33. Toulmin, S.E., 1958. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34. UK ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme. 1999. The Politics of GM Food: Risk, Science and Public Trust, Special Briefing No. 5 Brighton, UK: University of Sussex.
35. USA EPA. 1996. Environmental Protection Agency: Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. U.S. Federal Register, 61: 17960–18011.
36. Willard, C.A., 1990. Authority. Informal Logic, 12: 11–22.
37. Wynne, B., 1996. “ May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide ”. In Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, Edited by: Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., and Wynne, B., 44–83. London: Sage.