Try to see it my way: Modelling persuasion in legal discourse

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 271-287

  Bench Capon, Trevor J M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Audiences; Legal reasoning; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; STABILITY; TAXATION;

ARGUMENTATION; AUDIENCES; LEGAL REASONING; PERSUASION;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 18844402709     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:ARTI.0000045997.45038.8f     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2001). Review of George C. Christie, The Notion of the Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9: 59-71.
2. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2002). Representation of Case Law as an Argumentation Framework. In Bench-Capon et al (eds), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, 103-112. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2003a). Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429-448.
4. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2003b). Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values. Informal Logic. In Press.
5. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. and Rissland, E.L. (2001). Back to the Future: Dimensions Revisited. In Proceedings of JURIX 2001. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
6. Bench-Capon, T.J.M. and Sartor, G. (2001). Theory Based Explanation of Case Law Domains. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on AI and Law, 12-21. ACM Press: New York.
7. Berman, D.H. and Hafner, C.L. (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case Based Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law, 50-59. ACM Press: New York.
8. Berman, D.H. and Hafner, C.L. (1995). Understanding Precedents in a Temporal Context of Evolving Doctrine. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, 42-51. ACM Press: New York.
9. Branting, K.L. (2003). An Agenda for Empirical Research in AI and Law. Papers from the ICAIL 2003 Workshop on Evaluation of Legal Reasoning and Problem-Solving Systems, Edinburgh.
10. Christie, G.C. (2000). The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
11. Dung, P.H. (1995). On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321-357.
12. Dunne, P.E. and Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (2003). Two Party Immediate Response Disputes. Artificial Intelligence. In Press.
13. Hage, J. (1996). Formalizing Legal Coherence. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on AI and Law, 22-31. ACM Press: New York.
14. Moles, R.N. (1987). Definition and Rule in Legal Theory. Blackwell: Oxford.
15. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame.
16. Perelman, Ch. (1980). Justice, Law and Argument. Reidel: Dordrecht.
17. Prakken, H. (2000). An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case Based Reasoning. In Breuker, J., Leenes, R. and Winkels, R. (eds) 2000, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix, 49-57. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
18. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4): 331-368.
19. Rissland, E.L. and Friedman, M.T. (1995). Detecting Change in Legal Concepts. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, 127-136. ACM Press: New York.