David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (4):249-261 (1997)
In this paper I shall discuss the notion of argument, and the importanceof argument in AI and Law. I shall distinguish four areas where argument hasbeen applied: in modelling legal reasoning based on cases; in thepresentation and explanation of results from a rule based legal informationsystem; in the resolution of normative conflict and problems ofnon-monotonicity; and as a basis for dialogue games to support the modellingof the process of argument. The study of argument is held to offer prospectsof real progress in the field of AI and law, and the purpose of this paperis to provide an overview of work, and the connection between the various strands
|Keywords||argument AI and law explanation non-monotonic reasoning dialogue games|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Douglas Walton & Nanning Zhang (2013). The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (2):173-219.
Similar books and articles
T. J. M. Bench-Capon, T. Geldard & P. H. Leng (2000). A Method for the Computational Modelling of Dialectical Argument with Dialogue Games. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):233-254.
Katsumi Nitta & Masato Shibasaki (1997). Defeasible Reasoning in Japanese Criminal Jurisprudence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):139-159.
Kathleen Freeman & Arthur M. Farley (1996). A Model of Argumentation and its Application to Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197.
Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak & M. Timur Friedman (1997). Evaluating a Legal Argument Program: The BankXX Experiments. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):1-74.
Bart Verheij (2000). Henry Prakken (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1):35-65.
T. J. M. Bench-Capon (2002). The Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal Argument. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (1-3):79-94.
Martin Možina, Jure Žabkar, Trevor Bench-Capon & Ivan Bratko (2005). Argument Based Machine Learning Applied to Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):53-73.
Henry Prakken (2010). Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon (2001). George C. Christie, the Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1):59-71.
David B. Skalak & Edwina L. Rissland (1992). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (1):3-44.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #177,589 of 1,410,041 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,059 of 1,410,041 )
How can I increase my downloads?