Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashley, Kevin D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (1994). Legal Theory and Legal KBS: A Computer Scientist's Perspective. In Prakken, H., Muntjewerff, A.J. & Soetman, A. (eds.) Legal Knowledge Based Systems: The Relation with Legal Theory (JURIX 1994), 33–42. Koninklijke Vermade: Lelystad.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., (1995). Argument in AI and Law. In Hage, J.C. et al. (eds.) Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Telecommunication and AI and Law, 5–14. Koninklijke Vermade: Lelystad.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M. & Sergot, M.J. (1989). Towards a Rule Based Representation of Open Texture in Law. In Walter, Charles (ed.) Computing Power and Legal Reasoning, 39–60. Greenwood Press: New York.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Lowes, D. & McEnery, A.M. (1991). Using Toulmin's Argument Schema to Explain Logic Programs. Knowledge Based Systems 4(3): 177–183.
Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E. & Leng, P.H. (1992). A Dialogue Game for Dialectical Interaction with Expert Systems. In 12th Annual Conference on Expert Systems and Their Applications, 105–116. Avignon, EC2: Paris.
Brewka, G. & Gordon T.F. (1994). How to Buy a Porsche: An Approach to Defeasible Decision Making. In Proceedings of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics, 28–38. Seattle.
Dick, Judith P. (1992). A Conceptual Case Relation Representation of Text for Intelligent Retrieval. Technical Report CSR1-265, University of Toronto.
Doyle, Jon & Wellman, Michael P. (1991). Impediments to Universal Preference Based Default Theories. Artificial Intelligence 49: 97–128.
Farley, Arthur, M. & Freeman, Kathleen (1995). In Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, University of Maryland, 156–164. ACM Press: New York.
Gordon, Thomas F. (1993). The Pleadings Game — Formalising Procedural Justice. In Proceedings of The Fourth International Conference on AI and Law, Amsterdam, 10–19. ACM Press: New York.
Hage, Jaap C. (1995). Teleological Reasoning in Reason Based Logic/ In Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, University of Maryland, 11–20. ACM Press: New York.
Hage, Jaap C., Leenes, Ronald & Lodder, Arno R. (1993). Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2(2): 113–167.
Lodder, Arno R. & Herezog, Aimce (1995). DIALAW: A Dialogical Framework for Modelling Legal Reasoning. In Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, University of Maryland, 11–20. ACM Press: New York.
Lutomski, Leonard S. (1989). The Design of an Attorney's Statistical Consultant. In Proceedings of The Second International Conference on AI and Law, Vancouver, 224–233. ACM Press: New York.
McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription — A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13: 27–39.
McCarty, L. Thorne (1995). An Implementation of Eisner v Macomber. In Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, University of Maryland, 276–286. ACM Press: New York.
Marshall, Catherine C. (1989). Representing the Structure of a Legal Argument. In Proceedings of The Second International Conference on AI and Law, Vancouver, 121–127. ACM Press: New York.
Prakken, Henry (1993). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Ph.D. Thesis, Free University of Amsterdam.
Prakken, Henry (1995). From Logic to Dialectics in Legal Argument. In Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, University of Maryland, 165–174. ACM Press: New York.
Prakken, Henry & Sartor, Giovanni (1995). On the Relation between legal Language and Legal Argument. In Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, University of Maryland, 1–10. ACM Press: New York.
Reiter, R. (1980). A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13: 81–132.
Rissland, Edwina L., Skalak, David B. & Friedman, M. Timur (1996). BankXX: Supporting Legal Argument Through Heuristic Retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(1): 1–71.
Sartor, Giovanni (1992). Normative Conflicts in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(2–3): 209–235.
Skalak, David B. & Rissland, Edwina L. (1992). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(1): 3–42.
Storrs, Graham (1991). The Policy System. In Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (ed.) Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications, 165–182. Academic Press: London.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Zeleznikow, John & Stranieri, Andrew (1995). The Split-up System: Integrating Neural Nets and Rule Based Reasoning in the Legal Domain. In Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, University of Maryland, 185–194. ACM Press: New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bench-Capon, T. Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5, 249–261 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008242417011
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008242417011