Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 97-106

  Prakken, Henry ^a   Sartor, Giovanni ^b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CASE BASED REASONING; GAME THEORY; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE;

ARGUMENT GAME; ARGUMENTS; LEGAL CASES; PROOF BURDENS;

LOGIC PROGRAMMING;

EID: 34548052470     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1276318.1276338     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. T. J. M. Bench-Capon and H. Prakken. Justifying actions by accruing arguments. In P. E. Dunne and T. J. M. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pages 247-258. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2006.
2. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321-57, 1995.
3. T. Gordon and D. Walton. The Carneades argumentation framework - using presumptions and exceptions to model critical questions. In P. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon, editors, Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA-06, pages 195-207, Amsterdam etc., 2006. IOS Press.
4. T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. N. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 2007. To appear.
5. J. C. Hage. Formalising legal coherence. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 22-31. ACM, New York, N. Y., 2001.
6. J. C. Hage. Comparing alternatives in the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12:181-225, 2004.
7. R. R. Leenes. Burden of proof in dialogue games and Dutch civil procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 109-118. ACM, New York, N.Y., 2001.
8. H. Prakken. Modelling defeasibility in law: Logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 48:253-71, 2001.
9. H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10:113-33, 2002.
10. H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. N. Walton. Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 115-124. ACM, New York, N.Y., 2005.
11. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Rules about rules: Assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331-68, 1996.
12. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Presumptions and burdens of proof. In T. Van Engers, editor, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, pages 21-30. IOS Press, 2006.
13. G. Sartor. A formal logic for legal argumentation. Ratio Juris, 7:212-26, 1994.
14. G. Sartor. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. In Z. Bankowski, I. White, and U. Hahn, editors, Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, pages 119-57. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1995.
15. C. Williams. Burdens and standards in civil litigation. Sydney Law Review, 25:165-188, 2003.