David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197 (1996)
We present a computational model of dialectical argumentation that could serve as a basis for legal reasoning. The legal domain is an instance of a domain in which knowledge is incomplete, uncertain, and inconsistent. Argumentation is well suited for reasoning in such weak theory domains. We model argument both as information structure, i.e., argument units connecting claims with supporting data, and as dialectical process, i.e., an alternating series of moves by opposing sides. Our model includes burden of proof as a key element, indicating what level of support must be achieved by one side to win the argument. Burden of proof acts as move filter, turntaking mechanism, and termination criterion, eventually determining the winner of an argument. Our model has been implemented in a computer program. We demonstrate the model by considering program output for two examples previously discussed in the artificial intelligence and legal reasoning literature.
|Keywords||argumentation legal reasoning burden of proof|
|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 & Giovanni Sartor (2013). Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes. Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner (2012). A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
Similar books and articles
Douglas Walton (2002). The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument From Waste. Argumentation 16 (4):473-503.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Katsumi Nitta & Masato Shibasaki (1997). Defeasible Reasoning in Japanese Criminal Jurisprudence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):139-159.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Phan Minh Dung & Phan Minh Thang (2009). Modular Argumentation for Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):167-182.
Kurt Nutting (2002). Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law. Argumentation 16 (1):111-133.
Henry Prakken (2008). A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
Arno R. Lodder (2004). Law, Logic, Rhetoric: A Procedural Model of Legal Argumentation. In S. Rahman (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht, Kluwer. 569--588.
Giovanni Sartor (1992). Normative Conflicts in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (2-3):209-235.
Jaap Hage (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):199-273.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #58,408 of 1,101,944 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #128,846 of 1,101,944 )
How can I increase my downloads?