On argument acceptability change towards legal interpretation dynamics

Artificial Intelligence and Law 29 (3):311-350 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We propose a formal theory built upon an abstract argumentation framework for handling argumentation dynamics. To that end, we analyze the acceptability dynamics of arguments through the proposal of two different kinds of sets of arguments which are somehow responsible for the acceptability/rejection of a given argument. We develop a study of the consequences of breaking the construction of such sets towards the acceptance of an analyzed argument. This brings about the proposal of a novel change operation which allows to determine which arguments should be removed from the framework so that another particular argument becomes accepted. Finally, the proposed model is formalized in the light of the theory of belief revision by characterizing the corresponding operations through constructive definition and an axiomatic characterization, connecting them through the corresponding representation theorem. The theoretical proposal constitutes the fundamentals for a system implementation in many dynamic domains of application. In particular, we show its application for handling the dynamics of legal interpretation. In that sense, this proposal constitutes a fundamental approach and theoretical justification to handle the dynamics of legal arguments through changes of interpretative canons. We show a possible concretisation of our abstract theory for the legal domain by analysing a real legal case from the Argentinean jurisprudence. Such a system would be capable of suggesting alternative critical points in the current state of affairs of a legal case towards pursuing a specific goal for which the case is being investigated.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 99,410

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Statutory Interpretation as Argumentation.Douglas Walton, Giovanni Sartor & Fabrizio Macagno - 2011 - In Colin Aitken, Amalia Amaya, Kevin D. Ashley, Carla Bagnoli, Giorgio Bongiovanni, Bartosz Brożek, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Samuele Chilovi, Marcello Di Bello, Jaap Hage, Kenneth Einar Himma, Lewis A. Kornhauser, Emiliano Lorini, Fabrizio Macagno, Andrei Marmor, J. J. Moreso, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schafer, Chiara Valentini, Bart Verheij, Douglas Walton & Wojciech Załuski (eds.), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer Verlag. pp. 519-560.
A Bayesian approach to forward and inverse abstract argumentation problems.Hiroyuki Kido & Beishui Liao - 2022 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 32 (4):273-304.
Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning.Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):93-131.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-10-11

Downloads
21 (#882,664)

6 months
6 (#694,321)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?