Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Sprache: | |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Online-Zugang: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18917053 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Inhaltsangabe:
- <p>This paper proposes a structural framework for institutional analysis by translating narrative judicial reasoning into structured institutional routing pathways. It argues that case law, although expressed in narrative form, operates through underlying rule-bound decision sequences that can be rendered analytically explicit.</p> <p>To capture this structure, the paper introduces the <strong>4-3-3-2 institutional grammar</strong>, which organizes legal reasoning into four signals, three institutional containers, three conversion operations, and two triggering conditions. Building on this grammar, the paper develops a <strong>pre-analytical protocol stack</strong> consisting of the <strong>Pre-Judgment Logic Shell (PJLS)</strong>, the <strong>Cabinet-Drawer Model (CDM)</strong>, and the <strong>Procedural Case Interaction Log (PCIL)</strong>. Together, these components provide mechanisms for admissibility checking, institutional domain isolation, structured routing, and procedural traceability.</p> <p>The framework is demonstrated across multiple legal domains, including Canadian tax law, tort law, and commercial law. A structured case analysis of <em>Stewart v Canada</em> illustrates how narrative legal reasoning can be decomposed into institutional routing steps.</p> <p>The paper argues that legal reasoning can be represented not only as narrative interpretation but also as a reproducible institutional execution pathway. By exposing the routing logic embedded in legal systems, the proposed framework contributes to ongoing work in legal AI, institutional analysis, and regulatory governance, particularly in environments characterized by rule density and cross-jurisdictional interaction.</p>