Formalism for Game-Theoretic Approach to Law
Unifying Communication Theory, Legal Interpretation, and Game Theory
Abstract
This paper presents a game-theoretic approach to law, where participants cooperate to interpret the laws of a jurisdiction in a coherent and understandable manner. The objective is to achieve clear communication and a shared understanding of the laws. We introduce a formalism for this non-adversarial game, including payoff functions, and explore conditions under which cooperation and consensus are likely to occur. Key principles and propositions are presented, such as the Coherence Principle, which states that there exists an interpretation allowing all cooperating participants to achieve a positive payoff from the laws of a jurisdiction. The Differential Interpretation Game (DIG) is introduced, where participants can choose different interpretations that are defensible under the notation and syntax of legal language, drawing a parallel with the compactness theorem in logic. The stability and convergence of differential interpretations are discussed, highlighting the juxtaposition between local and global coherence in legal interpretation under game theory. This framework offers insights into the dynamics of interpretation and the role of legal interpreters in maintaining the integrity of a legal system.
1 Introduction
Law has long been a cornerstone of governance and societal order. It provides a rigorous framework for analysing the legality of actions, determining justice, and exploring the principles that govern societal conduct. However, the traditional approach to law often focuses on the study of individual legal systems and their properties, without considering the broader context in which these systems are developed, interpreted, and communicated.
In this paper, we propose a novel meta-legal approach to law that draws upon the principles of game theory. By viewing the development and interpretation of laws as a cooperative game played by multiple agents — ranging from citizens to lawmakers, and from judges to legal scholars — we aim to shed light on the complex dynamics that underlie the creation, interpretation, and enforcement of laws. This approach represents a departure from the conventional perspective, which tends to treat the law as a static and often adversarial endeavour. The corollary paints a balanced perspective; in the absence of a shared and cooperative interpretation and adherence to law acts arrive that breed disharmony, discontent, pain and suffering.
The game-theoretic framework we introduce allows us to explore the incentives, strategies, and interactions that shape the way laws are constructed and enforced. We consider participants — ranging from citizens to legislators, and from judges to lawyers — as players engaged in the process of creating and interpreting the law, each bringing their own unique perspectives and objectives to the table. The objective of the game we investigate is to achieve a shared understanding of the legal system under consideration, characterized by clear communication and a coherent interpretation of Acts and regulations.
We also propose an extension of Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé (EF) games, from finite model theory, to cover judgment over any legal framework, regardless of its jurisprudential properties. By adapting these games to our legal framework, we establish a mechanism for testing the cohesion of interpretations proposed by participants. This extension allows us to evaluate the robustness and consistency of the shared understanding reached through the cooperative game. Without such a test, we would have no means of assessing the validity and coherence of the legal interpretations developed by the participants. The Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé games, in their expanded form, serve as a critical component of our meta-legal approach, ensuring that the collaborative effort produces a well-grounded and reliable understanding of the legal system under consideration. EF games are characterised by a spoiler and duplicator and is a zero-sum game with winners and losers. A spoiler deliberately tries to put a duplicator in a position where they have no answer to their act. The law, however, has an answer to every act. Judges ultimately decide over which application to apply in response to a spoiler’s act, acting as a proxy to any such duplicator charged with a response to an act, so what we propose is consideration of a game where coherence and harmony ensue such that if each player aware of and in consideration of the law perform only those acts in accordance with the law then such is a better chance of never a need for a matter to be before the Courts. In reality we introduce nothing new but provide a formal framework to view the aspiration of what already exists, where most societies on the planet require of comparatively so few policing agents as to administer the law because invariable trust is put in the populace that they will live within the law as to not require policing and the Courts. Coherence and cooperation the central aim, the framework we avail also paints the corollary where matters become a question of law.
Central to our approach is the concept of coherence, both at the local and global levels. We investigate how participants navigate the tension between developing locally consistent interpretations of an Act’s laws and extending these interpretations to the entire legal system in a globally coherent manner. Drawing upon the compactness theorem from logic, we explore the conditions under which local coherence can be leveraged to achieve global understanding.
Our framework emphasizes the cooperative nature of the legal enterprise. We examine how participants — citizens, lawmakers, lawyers, and judges — collaborate, negotiate, and refine their interpretations in the pursuit of a shared understanding. The process of arriving at a consensus interpretation is modeled as a cooperative game, where participants work together to maximize their collective payoff by establishing clear and effective communication.
In this legal game, the role akin to the spoiler in an Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé game is played by individuals or entities challenging the existing interpretations of laws, such as defense lawyers, criminals or civil rights organizations testing the boundaries and applications of law and acts performed and allowable under law. Conversely, the duplicator’s role is akin to that of a judge or a regulatory body, striving to find and uphold interpretations that preserve the coherence and integrity of the legal framework, effectively balancing and adjudicating between competing interpretations.
By situating law within a game-theoretic context, we aim to provide a fresh perspective on the nature of legal reasoning and the mechanisms that drive the development and interpretation of laws. This meta-legal approach offers new insights into the role of collaboration, interpretation, and communication within the legal sphere.
In the following sections, we will develop the formal framework for our game-theoretic approach to law, introduce key principles and propositions, and explore the implications of this perspective for the study of law. We discuss the novel concept of the Differential Interpretation Game, which allows participants to propose, perform acts under and evaluate alternative interpretations of Acts, potentially leading to new legal understandings and reforms or arriving at criminal/summary offense/misdemeanour consequence.
Through this work, we hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of law, highlighting the vital interplay between individual initiative and collective effort in the pursuit of legal truth and justice as it exists within the structured game of law.
The Coherent Cooperative Game of Law (CCGOL)
In this section, we introduce a game-theoretic approach to law, which we call the Coherent Cooperative Game of Law (CCGOL). This game models the process of developing and sharing interpretations of legal Acts among multiple participants, with the aim of achieving a shared understanding through cooperation and communication.
2.1 Game Description
The CCGOL is played by a group of participants, each representing an agent engaged in the practice or study of law. The game progresses through a series of moves, where each move consists of either:
1. Sharing a written Act or legal decision with one or more participants for interpretation, or
2. Presenting a self-written and self-interpreted legal argument or act under the legal framework being investigated.
This cooperative framework highlights how legal professionals, scholars, and even citizens engage in a continuous dialogue and acts, interpreting, enacting and reinterpreting laws to adapt to new challenges and societal needs.
The objective of the game is for all participants to converge on a single, coherent interpretation of the legal system under consideration. Participants collaborate by exchanging ideas, proposing interpretations, and providing rationale to support their understanding. The game reaches a state of coherence when all participants adopt the same interpretation and consistently apply it to the Acts and regulations being shared.
This collective endeavour in the legal context represents a dynamic interplay between individual legal reasoning and community consensus, ensuring that laws are not only interpreted accurately but also resonate with the societal values they are meant to uphold. Meanwhile, the Differential Interpretation presents a scenario where players may deliberately or accidentally propose or enact interpretations that diverge from commonly accepted legal norms, pushing the boundaries of the legal system’s adaptability and resilience.
2.2 Differential Interpretation Game
Later in this paper, we will outline a variant of the CCGOL called the Differential Interpretation Game (DIG). In the DIG, participants revert to the rules of a classic EF game, allowing for the emergence of multiple interpretations and actions. This game models scenarios where participants propose or enact divergent interpretations of the legal framework, leading to a more complex and dynamic landscape of understanding. Formalising a DIG cements a reality that free will, for instance, provides for the ability to perform summary-offense/misdemeanours/crimes, and we formalise this in such a way that it is acknowledged. We assign no moral context to those engaging in a DIG other than that if not to challenge law for the benefit of a future CCGOL, then to find out otherwise that other players not accept the enusing acts/interpretation under a DIG as is commonplace with crime and punishment.
The DIG serves as a counterpoint to the CCGOL, highlighting the potential for disagreement and the challenges of maintaining coherence in the face of competing interpretations, or, in the extreme, no valid interpretation or adherence at all. It also raises important questions about the conditions under which coherence can be restored and the mechanisms through which participants can navigate the space of possible interpretations. In the legal context, this often translates into scenarios where innovative or unconventional legal arguments are tested in courts, challenging existing precedents and potentially reshaping the interpretation of law or judicial ruling in support of the accepted CCGOL.
Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé Games and the CCGOL
The CCGOL, incorporating an alternative DIG, resembles a stylized version of the classic Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé (EF) games, utilized in finite model theory, to compare the expressive power of legal frameworks and arguments. However, there are crucial differences between DIG, CCGOL, and an EF game. In an EF game, players compete against each other; one player aims to prove the equivalence of two legal frameworks, while the other seeks to disprove it. In contrast, the CCGOL is fundamentally cooperative, where participants collectively strive for a shared and coherent interpretation of the legal system. In a DIG, participants might not be aware they are engaged in such a game, and their participation does not necessarily reflect the intentional play of a zero-sum game.
In the CCGOL, there is no notion of losing, and participants do not engage in deception or adversarial strategies. Instead, the focus is on collaboration, communication, the collective pursuit of legal understanding and performance of acts in accordance with law as to enthuse that collaboration and communication. An analogy to logical proofs in this context serve as a means to reach an agreement on a legal interpretation or to confirm its validity, rather than as tools for competition. Participants do not lose if they diverge from a shared and global interpretation; instead, they simply do not play a CCGOL. Which is to say, they only lose in respect that they lose favour of participating in a CCGOL.
2.4 Coherence and the Impossibility of Certainty
A key insight that emerges from the CCGOL framework is that coherence and convergence on a shared legal interpretation can only be achieved through cooperative gameplay. It is only by engaging in the collaborative process of sharing, interpreting, acting under and refining legal Acts and precedents that participants can hope to arrive at a common understanding and mutual cooperation.
However, the framework also highlights a fundamental limitation: no two participants can ever be entirely certain that they have achieved perfect coherence. This is because there always exists the possibility that one or more participants are secretly engaging in a Differential Interpretation Game, proposing or acting under alternative interpretations that diverge from the agreed-upon understanding.
This impossibility of certainty adds a layer of complexity to the game-theoretic analysis of law. It suggests that the pursuit of legal coherence is an ongoing process, requiring continuous communication, verification, and refinement. It also highlights the fragility of the cooperative equilibrium, as the introduction of divergent legal interpretations or acts that disrupt the shared understanding and necessitate further negotiation and resolution.
3 Game Mechanics and Definitions
In this section, we define the key components and mechanics of the CCGOL and establish the necessary terminology to facilitate a clear understanding of the game.
3.1 Preliminaries
Before defining the specifics of the game, we acknowledge that our framework relies on well-established concepts from legal theory. We assume familiarity with the notions of legal Acts, case law, interpretation, and the principles of jurisprudence, which also involve distilling complex legal texts and precedents into their essential elements using the language and structure of the legal system. Acts and judicial decisions, as statements that can be interpreted and applied within the framework of a given legal system, form the basic building blocks of our game.
3.2 Moves and Communications
In the CCGOL, a move consists of one or more participants writing legal Acts, performing an act or judicial decisions and providing their interpretation. The interpretation of the law involves explaining its meaning, significance, and implications within the context of the legal system. A move can be made by a single participant or collaboratively by multiple participants working together to develop and interpret legal texts or act under law.
A communication refers to the act of sharing fully articulated legal arguments or judicial opinions with other participants, or performing an act that has equal interpretation as to its argument. When confined to jurisprudence it involves presenting the legal documents and their associated interpretations to the other participants in the game. Communications can be seen as a component of a move, as they facilitate the exchange of ideas and interpretations among participants. When confined to acts, the communication is the common or divergent interpretation of the act under legal Acts or precedent.
3.3 Payoffs and Objectives
• Payoffs: In the CCGOL, a participant receives a payoff when they successfully interpret laws of a jurisdiction in a manner that is both consistent with globally accepted legal principles, rules of procedure (i.e., defensible within the legal framework), established legal language, and conventions and coherent with the interpretations provided by themselves and all other participants. That is, in this game, the payoff for a participant is achieved when they can interpret laws in a manner that is both defensible and valid under the interpretation of the legal system, and when these laws meet the procedural and doctrinal standards of the legal framework under study. The ultimate goal is to achieve effective and successful communication and shared understanding of the laws among all participants.
• Cooperative Nature: The CCGOL becomes a cooperative game when participants work to interpret laws using a consistent and agreed-upon interpretation. By aligning their interpretations and converging on the same interpretation, participants ensure coherence and clarity in their understanding of the legal system. The cooperative aspect of the game requires participants to be aware of the specific legal framework they are working with and to strive towards the common objective of clear communication and comprehension of the laws.
• Non-Adversarial Structure: Unlike adversarial games such as the Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé game, where participants have opposing goals (e.g., the duplicator trying to prove the equivalence of legal interpretations, while the spoiler attempts to disprove it), the CCGOL is inherently non-adversarial. Participants do not aim to confuse, confound or mislead each other but instead collaborate to develop a shared understanding of the law. The focus is on cooperation, mutual support, and the collective pursuit of legal clarity and justice. It can be said that one or more participants only play a CCGOL if their intent is that on each move all participants win and achieve payoff.
3.4 Strategies and Outcomes
With the framework of the CCGOL in place, we can explore various aspects of the game, such as:
• The conditions that promote cooperation and facilitate the achievement of a shared interpretation among participants.
• The strategies participants may employ to ensure coherence and consistency in their interpretations, such as careful analysis of legal Acts, open communication, and iterative refinement of their understanding.
• The impact of the legal system’s structure, principles, and procedural rules on the game’s dynamics and the ease or difficulty of arriving at a unified interpretation.
By formalizing these aspects of the game, we can gain insights into the processes of collaborative law interpretation and the factors that influence the success of such endeavors. With this framework, we can start to formalize the interactions and outcomes in this game. We can explore conditions under which cooperation is most likely to occur, place the strategies participants might use to achieve coherence in legal interpretation under game theory, and how the structure of the legal system itself influences the game.
In the following sections, we formalize the CCGOL providing a framework for extensions in the further study and implementation of law and policy development.
We formulate a principle stating the conditions by which a group of participants interpreting laws of a jurisdiction have converged to a common interpretation that maximizes their collective payoff (i.e., clear and coherent communication of laws).
Symbols and Notation:
• Participants: Let P = {p1, p2, . . . , pn} represent the set of participants in the game, where each pi is an individual or entity involved in creating or interpreting law.
• Legal Systems: Let L = {l1, l2, . . . , lm} represent the set of legal systems under consideration in the game.
• Acts: Let S = {s1, s2, . . . , sk} represent the set of Acts under the legal systems in L. We include precedent here under Acts.
• Interpretations: Let I = {i1, i2, . . . , il} represent the set of possible interpretations that participants can apply to Acts in S.
• Payoff Function: Let π : P × S × I → R be the payoff function, where π(pi, sj, ik) represents the payoff to participant pi when interpreting Act sj using interpretation ik.
Theorems and Propositions:
• Coherence Principle: For any legal system l ∈ L and a set of participants P′ ⊆ P, there exists an interpretation i∗ ∈ I such that for all p ∈ P′ and for all Acts s ∈ S derived from l, π(p, s, i∗) > 0. This principle states that there is an interpretation that allows all participants in P′ to achieve a positive payoff from the Acts of legal system l.
• Cooperation Proposition: If a set of participants P′ ⊆ P use the same interpretation i∗ ∈ I for all Acts s ∈ S derived from a legal system l ∈ L, then the sum of their payoffs is maximized. That is, ∑p∈P′ π(p, s, i∗) is maximized for all s ∈ S.
• Communication Principle: For any legal system l ∈ L and a set of participants P′ ⊆ P, if there exists an interpretation i∗ ∈ I such that for all p ∈ P′ and for all Acts s ∈ S derived from l, π(p, s, i∗) > 0, then the participants in P′ can successfully communicate and share Acts of legal system l in an understandable way.
• Consensus Principle: Let N be a finite number of moves or steps in the game. For any legal system l ∈ L, if all participants in P agree on an interpretation i∗ ∈ I within N moves, then the game is a coherent cooperative game with a maximal payoff, where the maximal payoff is achieved when all participants work under the same interpretation i∗.
Formally, if ∃i∗ ∈ I such that ∀p ∈ P, ∀s ∈ S derived from l, and within N moves, π(p, s, i∗) > 0 and ∀p, p′ ∈ P, π(p, s, i∗) = π(p′, s, i∗), then the game is a coherent cooperative game with a maximal payoff.
This principle states that if all participants reach a consensus on the interpretation of Acts within a finite number of moves, then the game achieves its maximal payoff, characterized by coherent cooperation among the participants.
• Differential Interpretation Game (DIG) Principle: Let N be a finite number of moves in the game. For any legal system l ∈ L, if a participant p ∈ P chooses a different interpretation i′ ∈ I from the consensus interpretation i∗ after N moves, which is defensible under the legal norms and syntax of legal system l, then the participant effectively engages in the Differential Interpretation Game (DIG).
Formally, if ∃i′ ∈ I and i′ ≠ i∗ such that for some p ∈ P and s1..n ⊆ S derived from l, after N moves, p chooses i′ and π(p, s1..n, i′) > 0, then p is playing DIG.
• Stability Corollary: If a participant consistently chooses the same differential interpretation i′ in successive games of DIG, then the interpretation i′ is considered stable.
• Convergence Corollary: If multiple participants independently choose the same differential interpretation i′ in the DIG, it may indicate a convergence toward a new consensus interpretation.
• Compactness and Interpretation: The compactness principle, if i′ is limited to first-order legal reasoning, can be seen as an assurance that if a differential interpretation i′ can satisfy a finite subset of Acts derived from the legal system l, then there exists a legal framework (or an “interpreter”) that can satisfy all Acts under the interpretation i′.
The Differential Interpretation Game (DIG) conceptually parallels the compactness principle in legal theory in the sense that both involve the idea of extending local consistency or satisfaction (in the case of DIG, the coherence and defensibility of a differential interpretation) to a broader context (the entire set of Acts in a legal system). Just as the compactness principle assures that a finitely defensible set of legal arguments is defensible in its entirety, the DIG suggests that a differential interpretation that is coherent and defensible for a subset of Acts can be extended to the whole legal system, given the right conditions and the existence of a suitable legal framework. We put aside here that acts performed under a DIG may otherwise be found to be outside of a CCFG (i.e. criminal or misdemenour) but allow for where they set new precedent.
This analogy highlights the interplay between local and global coherence in legal theory and game theory, emphasizing the importance of consistent interpretation and the role of legal interpreters in maintaining the integrity of a legal system. In the context of DIG, the compactness principle can be interpreted as assuring participants in a game as follows:
• Compactness and Interpretation: The compactness principle states that if a set of legal arguments is finitely defensible, then it is defensible. In the context of DIG, this can be seen as an assurance that if a differential interpretation i′ can satisfy a finite subset of Acts derived from the legal system l, then there exists a legal framework (or an “interpreter”) that can satisfy all Acts under the interpretation i′. That is, in as much as a first-order formal theory may otherwise be interpreted under higher-order formal theories in mathematics, given a limited set of Acts of an arbitrary legal system and finitely defensible under local legal reasoning, we have no way of knowing whether the global interpretation is under higher-order legal principles other than by the interpreter discovering and acknowledging the higher-order interpretation or by the process of learning of that interpretation through engagement with other interpreters. We therefore acknowledge the existence of an interpreter and other interpreters.
• Existence of an Interpreter: The application of the compactness principle relies on the existence of an interpreter that is distinct from Acts and the legal system itself. This interpreter acts as an agent that validates the coherence and defensibility of the differential interpretation i′ within the framework of legal theory.
In DIG, the objective of the participant p is to demonstrate that their new interpretation i′ is coherent and defensible within the framework of legal theory, even if it differs from the consensus interpretation i∗ agreed upon by other participants; as in the defence of a legal argument. This game allows for the exploration of diverse legal interpretations, potentially leading to new insights or advancements in the legal system under investigation. In this context, the interpreter may also be challenging established legal norms, pushing the boundaries of the law to explore alternative possibilities and interpretations or find of itself punishment/sanction under law.
Local and Global Coherence in the Differential Interpretation Game
Local coherence from a participant’s perspective:
• Refers to a participant’s ability to choose an interpretation that is consistent and defensible for a specific subset of Acts derived from a legal system.
• In the Differential Interpretation Game (DIG), an individual participant may choose a different interpretation that is coherent and defensible for a subset of Acts they are focusing on.
• This local coherence allows the participant to explore and validate their interpretation within a limited scope of the legal system.
Global coherence from a participant’s perspective:
• Refers to a participant’s interpretation being consistent and defensible for all Acts within the entire legal system.
• When a participant’s interpretation is globally coherent, it means that their understanding of the legal system is consistent and defensible across all derived Acts of the system.
• Achieving global coherence is a more challenging task for an individual participant, as it requires their interpretation to be valid for the entire legal system and for all players.
The juxtaposition between local and global coherence from a participant’s perspective highlights the idea that a participant may start with a locally coherent interpretation (consistent and defensible for a subset of Acts) and then work towards extending this interpretation to be globally coherent (consistent and defensible for all Acts in the legal system). This process of moving from local to global coherence suggests that if a participant’s interpretation is finitely defensible (locally defensible), then there may exist a way to make it defensible for the entire legal system (globally defensible).
In the Differential Interpretation Game, participants have the opportunity to explore different interpretations and challenge the existing consensus. i.e. Free will. This allows for individual participants to contribute their unique perspectives, a process of communication. It must be said, however, that free will is not the same as entitlement or the right to act without conscience in the broader context of a CCGOL, other than we acknowledge that DIG players exercise this right and sometimes to their peril and at other times to set new precedent.
The leap from local to global coherence:
• In the Differential Interpretation Game (DIG), participants start by exploring different interpretations that are coherent and defensible for a subset of Acts (locally coherent).
• To make the leap from local to global coherence, participants must demonstrate that their interpretation can be extended to satisfy all sections within the legal Acts and/or precedent.
• This process may involve iterative refinement of the interpretation, where participants adjust and expand their understanding to encompass more Acts.
• The compactness principle suggests that if a participant’s interpretation is finitely defensible (locally defensible), there may exist a legal framework or an “interpreter” that can satisfy all Acts under that interpretation.
• The existence of such an interpreter provides a mechanism for participants to transition from local to global coherence, as it guarantees that a locally coherent interpretation can be extended to an entire legal system, rather than the legal system of a State or territory, and cements the role of a participant in a game. E.g. Local corruption may reflect global corruption within a framework, and conversely local abidance reflect a common global abidance.
Mechanism for arriving at a shared interpretation: Communication and gameplay:
• In the game-theoretic approach to law, participants engage in a cooperative process to arrive at a shared interpretation of the legal system.
• Participants communicate their interpretations and provide justifications for their understanding of the Acts.
• Through discussion and collaboration, participants compare their interpretations and identify areas of agreement and disagreement.
• The Coherence Principle suggests that there may exist an interpretation that allows all cooperating participants to achieve a positive payoff from the Acts of the legal system, the ultimate goal of a CCGOL.
• Participants work towards finding this coherent interpretation that maximizes their collective payoff and enables clear communication and understanding of the Acts.
• The process of arriving at a shared interpretation involves negotiation, compromise, and the integration of different perspectives.
• Participants may need to adapt their interpretations based on the insights and arguments presented by other participants.
• The stability and convergence of differential interpretations (as mentioned in the Stability Corollary and Convergence Corollary) contribute to the development of a shared interpretation or find of their sanction.
• If multiple participants independently arrive at the same differential interpretation, it indicates a potential convergence towards a new consensus interpretation and provides the basis for engagement in a CCGOL.
The transition from local to global coherence and the mechanism for arriving at a shared interpretation are interconnected. As participants work towards extending their locally coherent interpretations to the entire legal system, and if and when they engage in a collaborative process of communication, negotiation, and refinement as to the global interpretation, the CCGOL is in effect when each subsequent move results in a payoff under that shared interpretation. The pursuit of a coherent interpretation that maximizes collective payoff drives the process of arriving at a shared understanding.
The game-theoretic approach to law highlights the importance of individual participants’ contributions and the collaborative effort required to develop a comprehensive and shared interpretation of legal norms. It emphasizes the interplay between local and global coherence, the role of interpreters, and the mechanisms of communication and negotiation in the pursuit of a unified understanding of law if and where that will exists. The Courts and corrective/policing services, for instance, are a necessary where that will does not exist. Western societies, for instance, operate on the principal that so few comparatively persons are required for policing of the law that there is an assumption that the populous genuinely believes in the benefits of a CCGOL.
3.5 Implications and Further Developments
The CCGOL framework offers a fresh perspective on the nature of law and the processes through which legal Acts and principles are developed, interpreted, and shared. By modelling these processes as a cooperative game, we can gain insights into the dynamics of collaboration, the role of communication, and the challenges of achieving coherence in the face of multiple interpretations.
This approach not only enhances our understanding of how legal norms are shaped and applied but also opens up avenues for further research and development in legal theory and practice. It suggests potential areas for reform in how legal interpretations are negotiated and how consensus might be more effectively reached, especially in complex legal environments with diverse stakeholders.
As discussed in the Introduction section of [1], game-theoretic approaches to logic provide significant insights into how logical theories can be interactively developed and understood. So too with law. At some stage, the assertion that all of formal logic, in its empirical practice, may be studied under game theory and communication theory becomes a logical consequence, necessitating a leap towards the unification of the otherwise differentiated fields of study and implementation. The law is no different. While perhaps only acknowledged as a game in some spheres, game theory none the less applies, as does communication theory and logic.
This perspective invites a comprehensive examination of the intersections between these disciplines, proposing a synthesis that could redefine our approach to understanding and applying logic within various practical contexts or reflects a perspective that is otherwise already universally acknowledges but perhaps not written as such.
Through this work, we aim to contribute to a richer understanding of the social and interpersonal dimensions of legal reasoning, highlighting the importance of cooperation, dialogue, and the collective pursuit of justice in under law.
References
[1] J. Väänänen, Models and Games. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2011, ch. Introduction.
