A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning

Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197 (1996)
Abstract
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)
DOI 10.1007/BF00118492
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,141
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
The Uses of Argument.STEPHEN TOULMIN - 1958 - Cambridge University Press.
Defeasible Reasoning.John Pollock - 1987 - Cognitive Science 11 (4):481-518.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Comparing Alternatives in the Law.Jaap Hage - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (3):181-225.

Add more citations

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.
Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law.Kurt Nutting - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (1):111-133.
Defeasible Reasoning in Japanese Criminal Jurisprudence.Katsumi Nitta & Masato Shibasaki - 1997 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):139-159.
A Theory of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match.Jaap Hage - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):199-273.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

46 ( #112,382 of 2,163,620 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #348,040 of 2,163,620 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums