A Fairness Based Framework to Resolve Political Disputes
نویسندگان
چکیده
ـــــــThis paper presents FISA Framework for Intelligent Situation Analysis. Specifically we present a software tool to solve political disputes. Such a tool can be used successfully to cross the gap between the looseness of political situations specifications and the tightness of formal logical methods. This adaptation is performed by making use of data mining to discover both relevant topics and sequences associated with actors, which represent the underlying dispute by an arbitrary set of meaningful events that are arranged in temporal order. This allows performing probabilistic reasoning to determine the resources of the dispute by using Communicating Sequential Processes to ensure the solution correctness. More importantly, we propose exploiting fairness to tackle the nondeterministic nature of the dispute. In the proposed work, fairness techniques are relied upon to allow each country to reach the goal (which is not reachable before applying fairness) by investigating all possible paths. Consequently, fair solutions could be devised. In addition a two actor case study is given in details to illustrate capabilities of FISA. Currently such tool resolves complicated political disputes and manipulates various practical
منابع مشابه
Science should not be abandoned in a bid to resolve whaling disputes.
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is currently engaged in an intensive negotiating process in an attempt to resolve international disputes about whaling. The IWC has pioneered and agreed a management procedure approach for setting catch limits for commercial whaling that was unanimously recommended by its Scientific Committee. It is disturbing that current negotiations are moving towar...
متن کاملRelating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation
This article investigates to what extent protocols for dynamic disputes, i.e., disputes in which the information base can vary at different stages, can be justified in terms of logics for defeasible argumentation. First a general framework is formulated for dialectical proof theories for such logics. Then this framework is adapted to serve as a framework for protocols for dynamic disputes, afte...
متن کاملSocial Categories and Group Preference Disputes: The Aversion to Winner-Take-All Solutions
Six studies explored the hypothesis that third parties are averse to resolving preference disputes with winner-take-all solutions when disputing factions belong to different social categories (e.g. gender, nationality, fi rms, etc.) versus the same social category. Studies 1–3 showed that third parties’ aversion to winner-take-all solutions, even when they are based on the unbiased toss of a co...
متن کاملMonitoring and Evaluation of the Rule of Law and Justice in the EU: Status Quo and the Way Ahead?
In cooperation with: ii 1. Executive summary This Concept Paper presents a framework for monitoring and evaluation of the rule of law and justice in the European Union. The development of the framework has been based on a number of principles-objectivity and neutrality, validity and reliability, actionability. It also firmly follows the commitment of the Stockholm programme towards the needs an...
متن کاملTesting Theories of Fairness - Intentions Matter Armin Falk , Ernst Fehr and Urs Fischbacher September 2000
Recently developed models of fairness can explain a wide variety of seemingly contradictory facts. The most controversial and yet unresolved issue in the modeling of fairness preferences concerns the behavioral relevance of fairness intentions. Intuitively, fairness intentions seem to play an important role in economic relations, political struggles and legal disputes. Yet, so far there is litt...
متن کامل