An Integrated View on Rules and Principles

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 3-26

  Verheij, Bart ^a   Hage, Jaap C ^a   Van Den Herik, H Jaap ^b  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FORMAL LOGIC; SPECTRUM ANALYSIS;

REASON BASED LOGIC;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0032022670     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1008247812801     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Alexy, R. 1979. Zum Begriff des Rechtsprinzips. Rechtstheorie. Beiheft 1. Argumentation und Hermeneutik in der Jurizprudenz. In W. Krawietz, K. Opalek, A. Peczenik, and A. Schramm (eds.), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp. 59-87.
2. Ashley, K. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument. Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. The MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
3. Chalmers, D., French, R., and Hofstadter, D. 1995. High-level perception, representation, and analogy: A critique of artificial-intelligence methodology. In D. Hofstadter & the Fluid Analogies Research Group (eds.), Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thoughts. Basic Books, New York (New York), pp. 169-193.
4. Dworkin, R. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. New Impression with a Reply to Critics. Duckworth, London.
5. Hage, J. C. 1991. Monological reason based reasoning, in J. A. Breuker, R.V. de Mulder and J. C. Hage (eds.), Legal Knowledge based Systems. Model-Based Legal Reasoning. Vermande, Lelystad, pp. 77-91.
6. Hage, J. C. 1996. A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 199-273.
7. Hage, J. C. 1997. Reasoning with Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
8. Hage, J. C. and Verheij, B. 1994. Reason-based logic: a logic for reasoning with rules and reasons. Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence 3(2/3), 171-209. Also published as report SKBS/B3.A/94-10.
9. Kaptein, H. 1994. The Redundancy of Precedent and Analogy. Or: Eat S**t, Five Billion Flies Can't Be Wrong. 1994 ISSA Congress.
10. Loui, R. P. and Norman, J. 1995. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3, 159-189.
11. Peczenik, A. 1996. Jumps and logic in the law. What can one expect from logical models of legal argumentation? Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 297-329.
12. Perlis, D. and Subrahmanian, V. S. 1994. Meta-languages, reflection principles and self-reference. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger and J. A. Robinson (eds.), Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming. Volume 2. Deduction Methodologies. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 323-358.
13. Prakken, H. 1993. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Doctoral thesis, Free University, Amsterdam.
14. Prakken, Henry 1995. From logic to dialectics in legal argument. The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, pp. 165-174.
15. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1995. On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic properties. The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, pp. 1-10.
16. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1996. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 331-368.
17. Sartor, G. 1994. A formal model of legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 7(2), 177-211.
18. Soeteman, A. 1991. Hercules aan het werk. Over de rol van rechtsbeginselen in het recht. Rechtsbeginselen, Ars Aequi, Nijmegen, pp. 41-56.
19. Tiscornia, D. 1994. Three meanings of analogical reasoning in law. In I. Carr, and A. Narayanan (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence University of Exeter, pp. 137-153.
20. Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. University Press, Cambridge.
21. Verheij, B. 1996a. Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Dissertation Universiteit Maastricht. A summary and table of contents are available on the World-Wide Web at http://www.metajur.unimaas.nl/~bart/proefschrift/.
22. Verheij, B. 1996b. An integrated view on rules and principles. In R. W. van Kralingen, H. J. van den Herik, J. E. J. Prins, M. Sergot, and J. Zeleznikow (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems. Foundations of Legal Knowledge Systems. Tilburg University Press. Also published as report SKBS/B3.A/96-05, pp. 25-38.
23. Verheij, B. and Hage, J. C. 1994. Reasoning by analogy: a formal reconstruction. In H. Prakken, A. J. Muntjewerff and A. Soeteman (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems. The Relation with Legal Theory. Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, pp. 65-78. Also published as report SKBS/B3.A/94-14.
24. Yoshino, H. 1995. The systematization of legal meta-inference. The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, pp. 266-275.
25. Yoshino, H., Haraguchi, M., Sakurai, S. and Kagayama, S. 1993. Towards a legal analogical reasoning system: knowledge representation and reasoning methods. The Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, pp. 110-116.