  Standard Deontic Logic (SDL) has been used as the underlying logic to model
and reason over Multi-Agent Systems governed by norms (NorMAS). It is known
that SDL is not able to represent contrary-to-duty (CTD) scenarios in a
consistent way. That is the case, for example, of the so-called Chisholm
paradox, which models a situation in which a conditional obligation that
specifies what must be done when a primary obligation is violated holds. In
SDL, the set of sentences that represent the Chisholm paradox derives
inconsistent sentences. Due to the autonomy of the software agents of a NorMAS,
norms may be violated and the underlying logic used to model the NorMAS should
be able to represent violation scenarios. The contribution of this paper is
threefold: (i) we present how Kelsenian thinking, from his jurisprudence in the
context of legal ontologies, and Intuitionist Hybrid Logic can be adopted in
the modeling of NorMAS, (ii) discuss how this approach overcomes limitations of
the SDL and (iii) present a discussion about normative conflict identification
according to Hill's functional taxonomy, that generalizes from standard
identification by impossibility-of-joint-compliance test.
