David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):137-172 (2000)
Dialogues and dialectics have come to playan important role in the field of ArtificialIntelligence and Law. This paper describes thelegal-theoretical and logical background of this role,and discusses the different services into whichdialogues are put. These services include:characterising logical operators, modelling thedefeasibility of legal reasoning, providing the basisfor legal justification and identifying legal issues,and establishing the law in concrete cases. Specialattention is given to the requirements oflaw-establishing dialogues.
|Keywords||dialectics dialogues defeasible reasoning mediating systems|
|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
Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor (2004). The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law. Ratio Juris 17 (1):118-139.
Henry Prakken (2008). A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
Bart Verheij (2005). Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin's Scheme. Argumentation 19 (3):347-371.
Jaap Hage (2011). A Model of Juridical Acts: Part 1: The World of Law. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (1):23-48.
Similar books and articles
Jaap Hage (1996). A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):199-273.
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.
Jaap Hage (2003). Law and Defeasibility. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):221-243.
Ronald P. Loui (2001). Jaap Hage, Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and its Underlying Logic. Law and Philosophy Library. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (4):353-358.
Harm Kloosterhuis (2000). Analogy Argumentation in Law: A Dialectical Perspective. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):173-187.
Peter Wahlgren (1992). Automation of Legal Reasoning: A Study on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
H. Prakken & G. Sartor (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Henry Prakken (2008). Formalising Ordinary Legal Disputes: A Case Study. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):333-359.
Trevor Bench-Capon (1997). Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (4):249-261.
Eveline Feteris & Henry Prakken (2000). Introduction: Dialectical Legal Argument: Formal and Informal Models. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):107-113.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #280,340 of 1,793,064 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #206,240 of 1,793,064 )
How can I increase my downloads?