Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Representation of formal dispute with astanding order

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

Abstract

Computational dialectics is concerned with the formal representation of argument and dispute. The field emerged from developments in philosophy, artificial intelligence and legal theory. Its goal is to suggestalgorithms, procedures and protocols to investigate the tenability of logical claims, on the basis of information in the form of rules and cases. Currently, the field slowlyconverges to the opinion that dispute is the most fair and effective way to investigate claims. The basic assumption of this field is that dispute is the most fair and effective way to investigate claims. The definition of a formal dispute varies throughout the literature, butis considered not to vary within one and the same logical system. In this paper it is shown that parts of the definition of a dispute may change within one logical system.To this end, the notion of partial protocol specification (PPS) is introduced. A PPS is a part of the definition of the protocol. A modification to the protocol, in the form of a PPS, can be put forward, disputed, established and incorporated as aneffective `point of order’. The paper demonstrates the existence of self-undermining PPSs, it discusses the relevance of PPSs for dialectical models of legal argument and concludes with a description of how PPSs can be built into existing argumentation systems.

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 3(3), 70–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewka, G. 1994. A reconstruction of Rescher's theory of formal disputation based on default logic. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 366–370.

  • Chisholm, R. 1977. Theory of Knowledge. 2nd edn, Foundations of Philosophy Series, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming, and N-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M., Krychniak, P., and Manola, F. 1994. Specification and management of extended transactions in a programmable transaction environment. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Data Engineering. Houston, Texas. Also published as TC-0207-02-93-165, GTE Laboratories Incorporated, February 1993.

  • Gordon, T. F. 1995. The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C., Leenes, R., and Lodder, A. R. 1994. Hard cases: A procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vol. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 113–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, E. C. W. 1985. Formal systems of dialogue rules. Synthese 63, 295–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodder, A. R. 1997. Procedural arguments. In Proc.of the Tenth Jurix Conference. Computer/Law Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, pp. 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P. 1987. Defeat among arguments: A system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 3(2), 100–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P. 1989. Defeat among arguments: II. Report No. WUCS-89-06, Department of Computer Science, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P. 1990. Ampliative inference, computation, and dialectic. In J. L. Pollock (ed.), AI and Philosophy. MIT Press.

  • Loui, R. P. 1994. Argument and arbitration games. In Working Notes of the Workshop on Computational Dialectics, AAAI Conference. Seattle, pp. 72–83.

  • Loui, R. P. and Norman, J. 1995. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3, 159–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P. 1998. Process and policy: Resource-bounded non-demonstrative argument. Computational Intelligence 14, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nute, D. 1988. Defeasible reasoning and decision support systems. Decision Support Systems 4(1), 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, C. V. 1991. Principles for democratic control of bounded-rational, distributed, knowledge agents. Proceedings of the European Simulation Multiconference, 359–361.

  • Pollock, J. L. 1994. Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence 67(2), 377–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D. L. 1985. On the comparison of theories: Preferring the most specific explanation. Proceedings of the IJCAI, pp. 144–147.

  • Prakken, H. 1993. Logical Tools for Modeling Legal Argument, doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1996. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 331–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1998. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. To appear in Artificial Intelligence and Law.

  • Rissland, E. L. and Daniels, J. J. 1995. A hybrid CBR-IR approach to legal information retrieval. In Proceedings of the Fifth Int.Conf.on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL-95). College Park, MD, pp. 52–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B., and Friedman, M. T. 1955. Evaluating a legal argument program: The bankXX experiments. CMPSCI Technical Report 95-30.

  • Suber, P. 1990. The Paradox of Self-Amendment, a Study of Logic, Law, Omnipotence, and Change. Peter Lang Publishing.

  • Verheij, H. B. 1995a. Accrual of arguments in defeasible argumentation. In The Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Utrecht, pp. 217–224.

  • Verheij, H. B. 1995b. Arguments and defeat in argument-based nonmonotonic reasoning. In Progress in Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of the 7th Portuguese Conference on artificial Intelligence (EPIA’ 95). Springer, Berlin, Madeira, Portugal, pp. 213–224. Also published as report SKBS/B3.A/95-04.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1993. Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. Doctoral dissertation. Departments of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. A.W. 1993. Defeasible dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. The Journal of Logic and Computation 3(3), 3–27. Another version of this article is available via anonymous ftp from ftp.cs.rulimburg.nl:/pub/papers/vreeswyk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. A.W. 1994. IACAS user manual v1.0, Technical Report CS 95-03, Vakroep Informatica (FdAW), Rijksuniversiteit Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Available via anonymous ftp from ftp.cs.rulimburg.nl:/pub/papers/vreeswyk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1995b. Formalizing Nomic: working on a theory of communication with modifiable rules of procedure, Technical Report CS 95-02, Vakgroep Informatica (FdAW), Rijksuniversiteit Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Cognitive Science, Donostia, San Sebastian, May 3–6, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1995e. Several experiments in elementary self-modifying protocol games, such as Nomic, Technical Report CS 95-06, Vakgroep Informatica (FdAW), Rijksuniversiteit Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1995f. IACAS: An implementation of Chisholm's principles of knowledge. In The Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Delft University of Technology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, pp. 225–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1995g. The computational value of debate in defeasible reasoning. Argumentation: An International Journal 9(2), 305–342. Another version of this article is available via anonymous ftp from ftp.cs.rulimburg.nl:/pub/papers/vreeswyk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1995h. Emergent political structures in abstract forms of rule-making and legislation. Technical Report CS 95-08, Vakgroep Informatica (FdAW), Rijksuniversiteit Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1997. Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of PPSW, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, The Netherlands

    Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk

Authors
  1. Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk
    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

Vreeswijk, G.A.W. Representation of formal dispute with astanding order. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8, 205–231 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008304521924

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008304521924

Keywords

Search

Navigation