Graduate studies at Western
Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328 (2008)
|Abstract||This article presents a formal dialogue game for adjudication dialogues. Existing AI & law models of legal dialogues and argumentation-theoretic models of persuasion are extended with a neutral third party, to give a more realistic account of the adjudicator’s role in legal procedures. The main feature of the model is a division into an argumentation phase, where the adversaries plea their case and the adjudicator has a largely mediating role, and a decision phase, where the adjudicator decides the dispute on the basis of the claims, arguments and evidence put forward in the argumentation phase. The model allows for explicit decisions on admissibility of evidence and burden of proof by the adjudicator in the argumentation phase. Adjudication is modelled as putting forward arguments, in particular undercutting and priority arguments, in the decision phase. The model reconciles logical aspects of burden of proof induced by the defeasible nature of arguments with dialogical aspects of burden of proof as something that can be allocated by explicit decisions on legal grounds.|
|Keywords||Legal argument Legal procedure Adjudication Dialogue games|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Douglas Walton & David M. Godden (2005). Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.
Harm Kloosterhuis (2008). The Strategic Use of Formal Argumentation in Legal Decisions. Ratio Juris 21 (4):496-506.
Floris Bex, Henry Prakken, Chris Reed & Douglas Walton (2003). Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning About Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):125-165.
J. Anthony Blair (1998). The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument. Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.
Douglas Walton (2008). A Dialogical Theory of Presumption. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
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.
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 (2011). Argumentation Without Arguments. Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
Henry Prakken (2008). Formalising Ordinary Legal Disputes: A Case Study. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (4):333-359.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #155,199 of 749,219 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #62,892 of 749,219 )
How can I increase my downloads?