Argumentation and standards of proof

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 107-116

  Atkinson, Katie ^a   Bench Capon, Trevor ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Legal reasoning; Purposes; Standards of proof

Indexed keywords

CASE BASED REASONING; LOGIC PROGRAMMING; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE;

ARGUMENTATION; LEGAL REASONING; STANDARDS OF PROOF;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 34548028953     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1276318.1276339     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 29(2):125-169, 2002.
2. K. Atkinson and T. Bench-Capon. Zeno revisited: Representation of persuasive argument. In T. van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, volume 152 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 1-10. IOS Press, 2006.
3. K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2005), pages 35-44. ACM Press, 2005.
4. K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese, 152(2):157-206, 2006.
5. T. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3):429-48, 2003.
6. T. Bench-Capon, S. Doutre, and P.E. Dunne. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Aritificial Intelligence, 171(1):42-71, 2007.
7. T. Bench-Capon and E. L. Rissland. Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In B. Verheij, A. Lodder, R. Loui, and A. Muntjewerff, editors, Legal Knowledge Information Systems. JURIX 2001: The Fourteenth Annual Conference, volume 70 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 41-52. IOS Press, 2001.
8. T. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence., 150(1-2):97-143, 2003.
9. D. H. Berman and C. D. Hafner. Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1998), pages 50-59. ACM Press, 1993.
10. F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. Walton. Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(2-3):125-165, 2003.
11. C. G. Christie. The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. Kluwer Academic Press, 2000.
12. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321-357, 1995.
13. A. M. Farley and K. Freeman. Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1995), pages 156-164. ACM Press, 1995.
14. P. Finkelman. Fugitive baseballs and abandoned property: Who owns the home run ball? Cardozo Law Review, 23(5):1609-1633, 2002.
15. T. F. Gordon and N. I. Karacapilidis. The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1997), pages 10-18. ACM Press, 1997.
16. T. F. Gordon and D. N. Walton. The Carneades argumentation framework: Usuing presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Natural Argument, Proceedings of COMMA 2006, volume 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 195-207. IOS Press, 2006.
17. S. Modgil. Value based argumentation in hierarchical argumentation frameworks. In P. E. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Natural Argument, Proceedings of COMMA 2006, volume 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 297-308. IOS Press, 2006.
18. C. Perelman. Justice, Law, and Argument. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1980.
19. C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, USA, 1969.
20. H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. In J. Breuker, R. Leenes, and R., Winkels, editors, Legal Knowledge Information Systems. JURIX 2000: The Thirteenth Annual Conference, volume 64 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 49-58. IOS Press, 2000.
21. H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. Walton. Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2005), pages 115-124. ACM Press, 2005.
22. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Presumptions and burdens of proof. In T. van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, volume 152 of Frontiers in AI and Applications, pages 21-30. IOS Press, 2006.
23. A. Wyner and T. Bench-Capon. Towards an extensible argumentation system. Technical Report ULCS-07-003, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, 2007.