Skip to main content
Log in

Henry Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alchourrón, C. and Bulygin, E., 1971, Normative Systems, Vienna: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alchourrón, C. and Bulygin, E., 1981, “The expressive conception of norms,” pp. 95-124 in New Studies in Deontic Logic, R. Hilpinen, ed., Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alchourrón, C. and Makinson, D., 1981, “Hierarchies of regulations and their logic,” pp. 125-148 in New Studies in Deontic Logic, R. Hilpinen, ed., Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewka, G., 1989, “Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning,” pp. 1043-1048 in Proceedings of the Eleventh IJCAI, N.S. Sridharan, ed., Detroit, Michigan.

  • Bulygin, E., 1976, “Logische Fragen der Gesetzgebungstechnik,” pp. 612-627 in Studien zu einer Theorie der Gesetzgebung, J. Rödig, ed., Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Haan, 1996, “Automated Legal Reasoning,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.

  • de Vey Mestdagh, C.N.J., 1997, Juridische Kennissystemen Rekentuig of Rekenmeester? Het Onderbrengen van Juridische Kennis in een Expertsystem voor het Milieuvergunningenrecht, Deventer: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H.P., 1975, “Logic and conversation,” pp. 41-82 in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III, Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds., New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J.C., 1997, Reasoning with Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes, R.E., 1998, “Hercules of Karneades,” Ph.D. Thesis, Twente.

  • Lodder, A.R., 1998, “DiaLaw. On legal justification and dialog games,” Ph.D. Thesis, Maastricht.

  • Loui, R.P., 1995, “Book review: Foucault, Derrida, women' speaking justified, and modelling legal argument,” Artificial Intelligence and Law 3, 143-150.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., 1980, “Circumscription-A form of nonmonotonic reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence 13, 27-39.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, D. and Doyle, J., 1980, “Non-monotonic logic I,” Artificial Intelligence 13, 41-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.-J.Ch., 1989, “Formal methods in knowledge representation,” Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde Serie 4 7, 205-213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R.C., 1985, “Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic,” Artificial Intelligence 25, 75-94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch., 1963, The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D.L., 1988, “A logical framework for default reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence 36, 27-47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., 1993, “Logical tools for modelling legal argument,” Ph.D. Thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

  • Prakken, H., 1996, “Two approaches to the formalisation of defeasible deontic reasoning,” Studia Logica 57, 773-790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R., 1980, “A logic for default reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence 13, 81-132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R., 1987, “Nonmonotonic reasoning,” Annual Reviews of Computer Science 2, 147-186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royakkers, L.M.M., 1996, “Representing legal rules in deontic logic,” Ph.D. Thesis, Tilburg.

  • Royakkers, L.M.M. and Dignum, F., 1997, “Defeasible reasoning with legal rules,” pp. 263-286 in Defeasible Deontic Logic, D. Nute, ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., 1994, “Legal expert systems: Discussion of theoretical assumption,” Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht.

  • van der Torre, L., 1997, “Reasoning about obligations. Defeasibility in preference-based deontic logic,” Ph.D. Thesis, Rotterdam.

  • van Kralingen, R., 1995, Frame-Based Conceptual Models of Statute Law, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, H.B., 1996, “Rules, reasons, arguments, formal studies of argumentation and defeat,” Ph.D. Thesis, Maastricht.

  • Visser, P.R.S., 1995, Knowledge Specification for Multiple Legal Tasks: A Case Study of the Interaction Problem in the Legal Domain, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Royakkers, L. Henry Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9, 379–387 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008311419377

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008311419377

Navigation