A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 4, Issue 3-4, 1996, Pages 331-368

  Prakken, H ^a   Sartor, G ^b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Defeasibility; Dialectics; Logic programming; Rule conflicts

Indexed keywords

FORMAL LOGIC; LOGIC PROGRAMMING;

ARGUMENTATIONS; DIALECTICAL MODELS; LEGAL REASONING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0030234961     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF00118496     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ashley, K.D. 1990. Modeling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
2. Bondarenko, A., Toni, F. & Kowalski, R.A. 1993. An assumption-based framework for non-monotonic reasoning. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning, 1993, 171-189. Lisbon: MIT Press.
3. Brewka, G. 1994a. Reasoning about priorities in default logic. Proceedings AAAI-94, 247-260. Seattle.
4. Brewka, G. 1994b. A logical reconstruction of Rescher's theory of formal disputation based on default logic. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 366-370. Amsterdam: Wiley.
5. Brewka, G. 1996. Well-founded semantics for extended logic programs with dynamic preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4, 19-36.
6. Dung, P.M. 1993. An argumentation semantics for logic programming with explicit negation. Proceedings of the Tenth Logic Programming Conference, 1993, 616-630. MIT Press.
7. Dung, P.M. 1994. Logic programming as dialogue games. Unpublished paper.
8. Dung, P.M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321-357.
9. Farley, A.M. and Freeman, K. 1995. Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 156-164. College Park, MD: ACM Press.
10. Geffner, H. and Pearl, J. 1992. Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53, 209-244.
11. Gordon, T.F. 1994. The Pleadings Game: An Exercise in Computational Dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2: 239-292.
12. Gordon, T.F. 1995. The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, 1995.
13. Hage, J. C. Teleological reasoning in reason-based logic. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11-20. College Park, MD: ACM Press.
14. Hage, J.C., Leenes, R. & Lodder, A.R. 1994. Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2: 113-167.
15. Hamfelt, A. & Barklund, J. 1989. Metalevels in legal knowledge and their runnable representation in logic. Preproceedings of the III International Conference on "Logica, Informatica, Diritto", Vol. II, 557-576. Florence.
16. Horty, J.F., Thomasson, R.H. & Touretzky, D.S. 1990. A skeptical theory of inheritance in non-monotonic semantic networks. Artificial Intelligence 42, 311-348.
17. Kowalski, R.A. & Sadri, F. 1990. Logic programs with exceptions. Proceedings of the Seventh International Logic Programming Conference, 598-613. MIT Press.
18. Laenens. E. & Vermeir, D. 1990. A fixed points semantics for ordered logic. Journal of Logic and Computation Vol. 1 No. 2, 159-185.
19. Lodder, A.R. & Herczog, A. 1995. DiaLaw: A dialogical framework for modelling legal reasoning. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 146-155. College Park, MD: ACM Press.
20. Loui, R.P. 1987. Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 2, 100-106.
21. Loui, R.P. 1993. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Report WUCS-92-43, Washington-University-in-St-Louis, 1993.
22. To appear in Computational Intelligence.
23. Loui, R.P. & Norman, J. 1995. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3: 159-189.
24. Loui, R.P., Norman, J., Olson, J. & Merrill, A. 1993. A design for reasoning with policies, precedent, and rationales. Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 202-211. Amsterdam: ACM Press.
25. McCarty, L.T. & Sridharan, N.N. 1982. A computational theory of legal argument. Technical Report LRP-TR-13, Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University, 1982.
26. Nitta, K. et al. 1995. New HELIC-II: a software tool for legal reasoning. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 287-296. College Park, MD: ACM Press.
27. Nute, D.N. 1994. A decidable quantified defeasible logic. In D. Prawitz, B. Skyrms and D. Westerstahl (eds.): Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IX. Elsevier Science B. V., 1994, 263-284.
28. Pollock, J.L. 1992. How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence 57, 1-42.
29. Prakken, H. 1991. A tool in modelling disagreement in law: preferring the most specific argument. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 165-174. Oxford: ACM Press.
30. Prakken, H. 1993. Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Doctoral Dissertation Free University Amsterdam, 1993.
31. Prakken, H. 1995a. A semantic view on reasoning about priorities (extended abstract). Proceedings of the Second Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 152-159. Utrecht.
32. Prakken, H. 1995b. From logic to dialectics in legal argument. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 165-174. College Park, MD: ACM Press.
33. Prakken, H. & Sartor, G. 1995. On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1-9. College Park, MD: ACM Press.
34. Prakken & Sartor, G. 1996a. A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities. Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Aspects of Practical Reasoning, Springer Lecture Notes in AI 1085, 510-524. Bonn: Springer Verlag.
35. Prakken & Sartor, G. 1996b. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. To appear in Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics.
36. Raz, J. 1975. Practical reason and norms. Princeton University Press, 1975.
37. Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1977.
38. Rissland, E.L. & Skalak, D.B. 1991. CABARET: statutory interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34, 839-887.
39. Routen, T. 1989. Hierarchically organised formalisations. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 242-250. Vancouver: ACM Press.
40. Sartor, G. 1993. A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 192-201. Amsterdam: ACM Press.
41. Sartor, G. A formal model of legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 7, 212-226.
42. Simari, G.R. & R.P. Loui, R.P. 1992. A mathematical treatment of defeasible argumentation and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence 53, 125-157.
43. Skalak, D.B. & Rissland, E.L. 1992. Arguments and Cases. An Inevitable Intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3-44.
44. St-Vincent, P., Poulin, D. & Bratley, P. 1995. A Computational Framework for Dialectical Reasoning. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 137-145. College Park, MD: ACM Press.
45. Vreeswijk, G. 1993a. Studies in defeasible argumentation. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam, 1993.
46. Vreeswijk, G. Defeasible dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, Vol. 3, No. 3, 317-334.
47. Yoshino, H. 1995. The systematization of legal meta-inference. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 266-275. College Park, MD: ACM Press.
48. Yoshino, H. and Kithahara, M. 1988. Les-Project. In H. Fiedler, F. Haft, R. Traunmüller (eds.): Expert systems in law. Impacts on legal theory and computer law. Attempto Verlag, Tübingen, 1988, 47-65.