<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Beirlaen, Mathieu</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pelis, Michal</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Puncochar, Vit</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A unifying framework for reasoning about normative conflicts</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The logica yearbook 2011</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">College Publications</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1–14</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9781848900714</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;First, two context-dependent desiderata are presented for devising calculi of deontic logic that can consistently accommodate normative conflicts. Conflict-tolerant deontic logics (CTDLs) can be evaluated by their treatment of the trade-off between these desiderata. Next, it is argued that CTDLs defined within the standard format for adaptive logics are particularly good at overcoming this trade-off.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>