DiaLaw. On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation

Kluwer Academic Publishers (1999)

Abstract
In this work it is argued that legal justification can best be studied from a procedural, dialogical point of view: legal statements are justified if the audience is convinced in an argumentative dialog. The formalized and implemented model DiaLaw guards the procedure in which two players aim at justifying statements. DiaLaw shows the advances and problems linked to procedural models of legal justification. Moreover, an instructive discussion of the different models of procedural justification is provided. It is stressed that in legal justification not only logically compelling arguments should be considered, but also convincing arguments. Therefore DiaLaw also deals with the rhetorical, psychological aspects of argument. This book is relevant for scholars in legal theory, artificial intelligence, and argumentation, and can be used in graduate courses on AI and Law, and legal argumentation.
Keywords Logic   Justification   Law
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book $103.15 new (14% off)   $109.10 direct from Amazon (9% off)   $127.82 used    Amazon page
ISBN(s) 1402002874   9781402002878   0792358309 (hc. : alk. paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,024
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Argumentation Without Arguments.Henry Prakken - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

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.
Legal Logic? Or Can We Do Without?Arend Soeteman - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):197-210.
The Role of Coherence in Legal Reasoning.Barbara Baum Levenbook - 1984 - Law and Philosophy 3 (3):355 - 374.
A Formal Model of Adjudication Dialogues.Henry Prakken - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (3):305-328.
A Dialogical Theory of Presumption.Douglas Walton - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):209-243.
Formal Models of Coherence and Legal Epistemology.Amalia Amaya - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4):429-447.
Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law.Kurt Nutting - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (1):111-133.
Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach. [REVIEW]Jaap C. Hage, Ronald Leenes & Arno R. Lodder - 1993 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (2):113-167.
Kelsen, Quietism, and the Rule of Recognition.Michael Steven Green - 2008 - In Matthew D. Adler & Kenneth E. Himma (eds.), THE RULE OF RECOGNITION AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-01-22

Total views
17 ( #422,846 of 2,320,215 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #49,320 of 2,320,215 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature