Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes to model legal reasoning asdialectical theory-constructiondirected by teleology. Precedents are viewed asevidence to be explained throughtheories. So, given a background of factors andvalues, the parties in a case canbuild their theories by using a set of operators,which are called theory constructors.The objective of each party is to provide theoriesthat both explain the evidence (theprecedents) and support the decision wished by thatparty. This leads to theory-basedargumentation, i.e., a dialectical exchange ofcompeting theories, which support opposedoutcomes by explaining the same evidence and appealingto the same values. The winneris the party that can reply with a more coherent theoryto all theories of its adversary.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexy, R. and Peczenik, A. (1990). The Concept of Coherence and Its Significance for Discursive Rationality. Ratio Juris 3: 130–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1999). Some Observations on Modelling Case-Based Reasoning with Formal Argument Models. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, 36–42. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2000). The Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Sartor, O. (2001a). Using Values and Theories to Resolve Disagreement in Law. In Breuker, J. Leenes, R. and Winkels, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems JURJX 2000, 73–84. IOS Press: Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Sartor, O. (2001b). Based Explanation of Case Law Domains. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12–21. ACM: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (1995). Understanding Precedents in a Temporal Context of Evolving Legal Doctrine. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 42–51. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. (1995). The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Sciences. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs (NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L. T. (1997). Some Arguments About Legal Arguments. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 215–224. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (2000). An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case Based Reasoning. In Breuker, J., Leenes, R., and Winkels, R. (eds) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix 2000, 49–57. IOS Press: Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (2001). Modelling Reasoning about Evidence in Legal Procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 119–128. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, O. (1997). Rules about Rules: Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, O. (1998). Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. C. and Deedman, C. (1987). The Application of Expert Systems Technology to Case-Based Law. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 84–93. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton University Press: Princeton (NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (2001). Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CIRSFID, University of Bologna, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor

Authors
  1. Giovanni Sartor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sartor, G. Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 95–112 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019589831118

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019589831118

Keywords

Search

Navigation