If I commit to X, am I always committing to not ~X?
In classical propositional logic, double negation always the same as not negating at all. I'm curious if this principle applies to commitments. In general it seems to be true. If I commit that my homework will be done, I commit that my homework will not be undone.
Non-classical logic does not always admit this rule. I'm curious if there are philosophers who have explored the concept of commitment using logic where a commitment to ensure X is not necessarily a commitment to ensure the compliment of X does not come to pass (or a related phrasing). Clearly logics such as intuitionistic logic have been explored, but have philosophers explored applying them to the concept of commitments?