Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eveline T. Feteris: Fundamentals of legal argumentation

Springer, 2017, 2nd edn, pp. 363

  • Book review
  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. “Argumentation theory” means different things to different people. Feteris speaks of the work of “philosophers, legal theorists and legal philosophers”. I shall try to refer to this perspective as informal argumentation theory, to distinguish it from the computational models of AI and AI and Law. The author herself is located in the Faculty of Humanities, Capaciteitsgroep Taalbeheersing, Argumentatietheorie en Retorica, at the University of Amsterdam.

  2. Manifest since 2006 in the biennial COMMA conferences and the journal Argument and Computation. The ever increasing importance of computational argumentation has been a feature of general AI over the last two decades.

References

  • Alexy R (1989) A theory of legal argumentation: the theory of rational discourses as a theory of legal justification. Clarendon Press, Wotton-under-Edge

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2007) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif Intell 171(10–15):855–874

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, Walton D (2013) Distinctive features of persuasion and deliberation dialogues. Argum Comput 4(2):105127

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T (1998) Specification and implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game. In: Proceedings of JURIX 1998, pp 5–20

  • Bench-Capon T (2017) Hypo’s legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue. Artif Intell Law 25:1–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T, Lowes D, McEnery A (1991) Argument-based explanation of logic programs. Knowl Based Syst 4(3):177–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K, Chorley A (2005) Persuasion and value in legal argument. J Logic Comput 15(6):1075–1097

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp 50–59

  • Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Feteris E T (1996) The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In: International conference on formal and applied practical reasoning, pp 151–166

  • Feteris ET (1994) Recent developments in legal argumentation theory: dialectical approaches to legal argumentation. Rev Int Semiot Jurid 7(2):133–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feteris ET (1997) A survey of 25 years of research on legal argumentation. Argumentation 11(3):355–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feteris ET (2000) A dialogical theory of legal discussions: Pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of legalargumentation. Artif Intell Law 8(2):115–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feteris ET (2002) A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation 16(3):349367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feteris ET (2005) The rational reconstruction of argumentation referring to consequences and purposes in the application of legal rules: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 19(4):459–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feteris ET (2008) The pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of teleological argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation 22(4):489–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feteris ET (2016) Prototypical argumentative patterns in a legal context: the role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisions. Argumentation 30(1):61–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feteris ET, Prakken H (2000) Introduction: dialectical legal argument: formal and informal models. Artif Intell Law 8(2):107–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF (2012) The Carneades web service. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, IOS Press, pp 517–518

  • Gordon TF (1993) The pleadings game. Artif Intell Law 2(4):239–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10):875–896

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan J (eds) Syntax and semantics vol 3, speech acts. Academic Press, New York, pp 43–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Horty JF, Bench-Capon T (2012) A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 20(2):181–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie JD (1979) Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. J Philos Logic 8(1):117–133

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall CC (1989) Representing the structure of a legal argument. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp 121–127

  • McCarty LT (1976) Reflections on TAXMAN: an experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Harv Law Rev 90:837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modgil S, Prakken H (2014) The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argum Comput 5(1):31–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1980) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H (2001) Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127(1):187–219

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):331368

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Sartor G (2015) Law and logic: a review from an argumentation perspective. Artif Intell 227:214–245

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2013) A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. J Logic Comput 25(5):1141–1166

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rigoni A (2015) An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 23(2):133–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S (1958) The uses ofargument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij B (2009) The Toulmin argument model in artificial intelligence. In: Simari G, Rahwan I (eds) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–238

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Krabbe EC (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts ofinterpersonal reasoning. SUNY press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Sartor G, Macagno F (2016) An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation. Artif Intell Law 24(1):51–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow J, Stranieri A (1995) The split-up system: integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp 185–194

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    T. J. M. Bench-Capon

Authors
  1. T. J. M. Bench-Capon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. J. M. Bench-Capon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bench-Capon, T.J.M. Eveline T. Feteris: Fundamentals of legal argumentation. Artif Intell Law 26, 307–314 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9226-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9226-0

Search

Navigation