Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The missing link revisited: The role of teleology in representing legal argument

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

Abstract

In this paper I recapitulate the ideas of Berman and Hafner (1993) regarding the role of teleology in legal argument. I show how these ideas can be used to address some issues arising from more recent work on legal argument, and how this relates to ideas associated with the “New Rhetoric” of Perelman. I illustrate the points with a discussion of the classic problem of which vehicles should be allowed in parks.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashley, K. D. and Rissland, E. L. (1988). A Case-Based Approach to Modelling Legal Expertise. IEEE Expert, pp. 70–77.

  • Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Reasoning. MIT Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1999). Some Observations on Modelling Case Based Reasoning with Formal Argument Models. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, 36–42. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2001). George C. Christie, The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument Artificial Intelligence and Law 9(1): 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law, 50–59. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L. K. (1991). Reasoning with Portions of Precedent. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on AI and Law, 145–154. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F. (1993). The Pleadings Game: Formalizing Procedural Justice. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law, 10–19. ACM Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasso, F., Cawsey, A. and Jones, R. (2000). Dialectical Argumentation to Solve Conflicts in Advice Giving: A Case Study in the Promotion of Healthy Nutrition.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53: 1077–1115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch. (1980). Justice, Law and Argument. Reidel: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (1993). A Logical Framework for Modelling Legal Argument. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law, 1–9. ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1998). Modelling Legal ReasoningWith Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6(2–4): 231–287.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, The 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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bench-Capon, T.J.M. The missing link revisited: The role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10, 79–94 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019501830692

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019501830692

Keywords

Search

Navigation