Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197 (1996)
We present a computational model of dialectical argumentation that could serve as a basis for legal reasoning. The legal domain is an instance of a domain in which knowledge is incomplete, uncertain, and inconsistent. Argumentation is well suited for reasoning in such weak theory domains. We model argument both as information structure, i.e., argument units connecting claims with supporting data, and as dialectical process, i.e., an alternating series of moves by opposing sides. Our model includes burden of proof as a key element, indicating what level of support must be achieved by one side to win the argument. Burden of proof acts as move filter, turntaking mechanism, and termination criterion, eventually determining the winner of an argument. Our model has been implemented in a computer program. We demonstrate the model by considering program output for two examples previously discussed in the artificial intelligence and legal reasoning literature.
|Keywords||argumentation legal reasoning burden of proof|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation.E. M. Barth - 1982 - W. De Gruyter.
Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge.Nicholas Rescher - 1977 - State University of New York Press.
Citations of this work BETA
A History of AI and Law in 50 Papers: 25 Years of the International Conference on AI and Law. [REVIEW]Trevor Bench-Capon, Michał Araszkiewicz, Kevin Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Floris Bex, Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier, Paul Bourgine, Jack G. Conrad, Enrico Francesconi, Thomas F. Gordon, Guido Governatori, Jochen L. Leidner, David D. Lewis, Ronald P. Loui, L. Thorne McCarty, Henry Prakken, Frank Schilder, Erich Schweighofer, Paul Thompson, Alex Tyrrell, Bart Verheij, Douglas N. Walton & Adam Z. Wyner - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (3):215-319.
Comparing Alternatives in the Law.Jaap Hage - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (3):181-225.
Digital Technologies and Artificial Intelligence’s Present and Foreseeable Impact on Lawyering, Judging, Policing and Law Enforcement.Ephraim Nissan - forthcoming - AI and Society.
Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
Similar books and articles
Normative Conflicts in Legal Reasoning.Giovanni Sartor - 1992 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (2-3):209-235.
Law, Logic, Rhetoric: A Procedural Model of Legal Argumentation.Arno R. Lodder - 2004 - In S. Rahman (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 569--588.
A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues.Henry Prakken - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
Modular Argumentation for Modelling Legal Doctrines in Common Law of Contract.Phan Minh Dung & Phan Minh Thang - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):167-182.
Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Defeasible Reasoning in Japanese Criminal Jurisprudence.Katsumi Nitta & Masato Shibasaki - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):139-159.
A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads46 ( #112,382 of 2,163,620 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,040 of 2,163,620 )
How can I increase my downloads?