Order:
Disambiguations
Giovanni Sartor [37]G. Sartor [4]
  1.  24
    A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values.Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon & Giovanni Sartor - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):97-143.
    Reasoning with cases has been a primary focus of those working in AI and law who have attempted to model legal reasoning. In this paper we put forward a formal model of reasoning with cases which captures many of the insights from that previous work. We begin by stating our view of reasoning with cases as a process of constructing, evaluating and applying a theory. Central to our model is a view of the relationship between cases, rules based on cases, (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  2.  31
    Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible Priorities.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 1997 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7 (1-2):25-75.
    ABSTRACT Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a semantics and proof theory of a system for defeasible argumentation. Arguments are expressed in a logic-programming language with both weak and strong negation, conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities are not fixed, but are themselves defeasibly derived as conclusions within the system. Thus debates on the choice between conflicting arguments can also be modelled. The (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  3.  75
    The Ethical Knob: Ethically-Customisable Automated Vehicles and the Law.Giuseppe Contissa, Francesca Lagioia & Giovanni Sartor - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (3):365-378.
    Accidents involving autonomous vehicles raise difficult ethical dilemmas and legal issues. It has been argued that self-driving cars should be programmed to kill, that is, they should be equipped with pre-programmed approaches to the choice of what lives to sacrifice when losses are inevitable. Here we shall explore a different approach, namely, giving the user/passenger the task of deciding what ethical approach should be taken by AVs in unavoidable accident scenarios. We thus assume that AVs are equipped with what we (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  33
    A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
    Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting arguments. Its use is illustrated with applications to realistic legal examples, and the potential for implementation is discussed. The framework has the form of a logical system for defeasible argumentation. Its language, which is of a logic-programming-like nature, has both weak and explicit negation, and conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  5.  15
    An Arugmentation Framework for Contested Cases of Statutory Interpertation.Douglas Walton, Giovanni Sartor & Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1):51-91.
    This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6.  10
    CLAUDETTE: An Automated Detector of Potentially Unfair Clauses in Online Terms of Service.Marco Lippi, Przemysław Pałka, Giuseppe Contissa, Francesca Lagioia, Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, Giovanni Sartor & Paolo Torroni - forthcoming - Artificial Intelligence and Law:1-23.
    Terms of service of on-line platforms too often contain clauses that are potentially unfair to the consumer. We present an experimental study where machine learning is employed to automatically detect such potentially unfair clauses. Results show that the proposed system could provide a valuable tool for lawyers and consumers alike.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  18
    Teleological Arguments and Theory-Based Dialectics.Giovanni Sartor - 2002 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (1-3):95-112.
    This paper proposes to model legal reasoning asdialectical theory-constructiondirected by teleology. Precedents are viewed asevidence to be explained throughtheories. So, given a background of factors andvalues, the parties in a case canbuild their theories by using a set of operators,which are called theory constructors.The objective of each party is to provide theoriesthat both explain the evidence (theprecedents) and support the decision wished by thatparty. This leads to theory-basedargumentation, i.e., a dialectical exchange ofcompeting theories, which support opposedoutcomes by explaining the same (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  8. Fundamental Legal Concepts: A Formal and Teleological Characterisation. [REVIEW]Giovanni Sartor - 2006 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (1-2):101-142.
    We shall introduce a set of fundamental legal concepts, providing a definition of each of them. This set will include, besides the usual deontic modalities (obligation, prohibition and permission), the following notions: obligative rights (rights related to other’s obligations), permissive rights, erga-omnes rights, normative conditionals, liability rights, different kinds of legal powers, potestative rights (rights to produce legal results), result-declarations (acts intended to produce legal determinations), and sources of the law.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  9.  40
    The Three Faces of Defeasibility in the Law.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2004 - Ratio Juris 17 (1):118-139.
  10.  4
    Arguing About Causes in Law: A Semi-Formal Framework for Causal Arguments.Rūta Liepiņa, Giovanni Sartor & Adam Wyner - forthcoming - Artificial Intelligence and Law:1-21.
    Disputes over causes play a central role in legal argumentation and liability attribution. Legal approaches to causation often struggle to capture cause-in-fact in complex situations, e.g. overdetermination, preemption, omission. In this paper, we first assess three current theories of causation to illustrate their strengths and weaknesses in capturing cause-in-fact. Secondly, we introduce a semi-formal framework for modelling causal arguments through strict and defeasible rules. Thirdly, the framework is applied to the Althen vaccine injury case. And lastly, we discuss the need (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. A Logical Analysis of Burdens of Proof.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 2008 - In Hendrik Kaptein (ed.), Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Ashgate.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  12.  42
    Legal Concepts as Inferential Nodes and Ontological Categories.Giovanni Sartor - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (3):217-251.
    I shall compare two views of legal concepts: as nodes in inferential nets and as categories in an ontology (a conceptual architecture). Firstly, I shall introduce the inferential approach, consider its implications, and distinguish the mere possession of an inferentially defined concept from the belief in the concept’s applicability, which also involves the acceptance of the concept’s constitutive inferences. For making this distinction, the inferential and eliminative analysis of legal concepts proposed by Alf Ross will be connected to the views (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  13.  41
    Normative Autonomy and Normative Co-Ordination: Declarative Power, Representation, and Mandate. [REVIEW]Jonathan Gelati, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor & Guido Governatori - 2004 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (1-2):53-81.
    In this paper we provide a formal analysis of the idea of normative co-ordination. We argue that this idea is based on the assumption that agents can achieve flexible co-ordination by conferring normative positions to other agents. These positions include duties, permissions, and powers. In particular, we explain the idea of declarative power, which consists in the capacity of the power-holder of creating normative positions, involving other agents, simply by proclaiming such positions. In addition, we account also for the concepts (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  14.  20
    Probabilistic Rule-Based Argumentation for Norm-Governed Learning Agents.Régis Riveret, Antonino Rotolo & Giovanni Sartor - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (4):383-420.
    This paper proposes an approach to investigate norm-governed learning agents which combines a logic-based formalism with an equation-based counterpart. This dual formalism enables us to describe the reasoning of such agents and their interactions using argumentation, and, at the same time, to capture systemic features using equations. The approach is applied to norm emergence and internalisation in systems of learning agents. The logical formalism is rooted into a probabilistic defeasible logic instantiating Dung’s argumentation framework. Rules of this logic are attached (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  15.  34
    A Formal Model of Legal Argumentation.Giovanni Sartor - 1994 - Ratio Juris 7 (2):177-211.
  16.  59
    Doing Justice to Rights and Values: Teleological Reasoning and Proportionality. [REVIEW]Giovanni Sartor - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):175-215.
    This paper studies how legal choices, and in particular legislative determinations, need to consider multiple rights and values, and can be assessed accordingly. First it is argued that legal norms (and in particular constitutional right-norms) often prescribe the pursuit of goals, which may be in conflict one with another. Then a model of teleological reasoning is brought to bear on choices affecting different goals, among which those prescribed by constitutional norms. An analytical framework is provided for evaluating such choices with (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  17.  22
    On Legal Contracts, Imperative and Declarative Smart Contracts, and Blockchain Systems.Guido Governatori, Florian Idelberger, Zoran Milosevic, Regis Riveret, Giovanni Sartor & Xiwei Xu - 2018 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 26 (4):377-409.
    This paper provides an analysis of how concepts pertinent to legal contracts can influence certain aspects of their digital implementation through smart contracts, as inspired by recent developments in distributed ledger technology. We discuss how properties of imperative and declarative languages including the underlying architectures to support contract management and lifecycle apply to various aspects of legal contracts. We then address these properties in the context of several blockchain architectures. While imperative languages are commonly used to implement smart contracts, we (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  56
    Cognitive Automata and the Law: Electronic Contracting and the Intentionality of Software Agents. [REVIEW]Giovanni Sartor - 2009 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):253-290.
    I shall argue that software agents can be attributed cognitive states, since their behaviour can be best understood by adopting the intentional stance. These cognitive states are legally relevant when agents are delegated by their users to engage, without users’ review, in choices based on their the agents’ own knowledge. Consequently, both with regard to torts and to contracts, legal rules designed for humans can also be applied to software agents, even though the latter do not have rights and duties (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  19.  50
    Legality Policies and Theories of Legality: From Bananas to Radbruch's Formula.Giovanni Sartor - 2009 - Ratio Juris 22 (2):218-243.
    Abstract. In this paper I shall take an inferential approach to legality (legal validity), and consider how the legality of a norm can be inferred, and what can be inferred from it. In particular, I shall analyse legality policies, namely, conditionals conferring the quality of legality upon norms having certain properties, and I shall examine to what extent such conditionals need to be positivistic, so that legality is only dependant on social facts. Finally, I shall consider how legality is transmitted (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  20.  33
    Introduction: Agents and Norms: How to Fill the Gap? [REVIEW]Rosaria Conte, Rino Falcone & Giovanni Sartor - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (1):1-15.
  21.  20
    Legal Validity: An Inferential Analysis.Giovanni Sartor - 2008 - Ratio Juris 21 (2):212-247.
    . I will argue that the concept of law is a normative notion, irreducible to any factual description. Its conceptual function is that of relating certain properties a norm may possess to the conclusion that the norm is legally binding, namely, that it deserves to be endorsed and applied in legal reasoning. Legal validity has to be distinguished from other, more demanding, normative ideas, such as moral bindingness or legal optimality.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  22.  44
    Introduction: From Legal Theories to Neural Networks and Fuzzy Reasoning. [REVIEW]Lothar Philipps & Giovanni Sartor - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):115-128.
    Computational approaches to the law have frequently been characterized as being formalistic implementations of the syllogistic model of legal cognition: using insufficient or contradictory data, making analogies, learning through examples and experiences, applying vague and imprecise standards. We argue that, on the contrary, studies on neural networks and fuzzy reasoning show how AI & law research can go beyond syllogism, and, in doing that, can provide substantial contributions to the law.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  23.  71
    Fundamental Legal Concepts: A Teleological Characterisation.Giovanni Sartor - forthcoming - Artificial Intelligence and Law.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. Defeasibility in Legal Reasoning.Giovanni Sartor - 2012 - In Jordi Ferrer Beltrán & Giovanni Battista Ratti (eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford University Press.
  25.  22
    Reasoning with Factors.Giovanni Sartor - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):417-432.
    The paper proposes an analysis and a formalisation of factor-based reasoning. After examining the relevance of factors in legal reasoning, binary and scalable factors are distinguished and the relations between them are discussed. An account of a fortiori reasoning with both types of factors is developed.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  26.  58
    Normative Conflicts in Legal Reasoning.Giovanni Sartor - 1992 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (2-3):209-235.
    This article proposes a formal analysis of a fundamental aspect of legal reasoning: dealing with normative conflicts. Firstly, examples are illustrated concerning the dynamics of legal systems, the application of rules and exceptions, and the semantic indeterminacy of legal sources. Then two approaches to cope with conflicting information are presented: the preferred theories of Brewka, and the belief change functions of Alchourrón, Gärdenfors, and Makinson. The relations between those approaches are closely examined, and some aspects of a model of reasoning (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  27.  29
    Legal Validity as Doxastic Obligation: From Definition to Normativity. [REVIEW]G. Sartor - 2000 - Law and Philosophy 19 (5):585-625.
    The paper argues for viewing legal validity as a doxastic obligation, i.e. as the obligation to accept a rule in legal reasoning. This notion of legal validity is shown to be both sufficient for the laywers' needs and neutral in regard to various theories of the grounds of validity, i.e. theories intended to identify what rules are legally valid, by proposing different grounds for attributing validity. All of these theories, rather then being alternative definitions of validity, presuppose the notion here (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  28.  13
    Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal Interpretation.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2018 - Law and Philosophy 37 (1):69-115.
    The fields of linguistic pragmatics and legal interpretation are deeply interrelated. The purpose of this paper is to show how pragmatics and the developments in argumentation theory can contribute to the debate on legal interpretation. The relation between the pragmatic maxims and the presumptions underlying the legal canons are brought to light, unveiling the principles that underlie the types of argument usually used to justify a construction. The Gricean maxims and the arguments of legal interpretation are regarded as presumptions subject (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29.  41
    Teleological Justification of Argumentation Schemes.Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):111-142.
    Argumentation schemes are forms of reasoning that are fallible but correctable within a self-correcting framework. Their use provides a basis for taking rational action or for reasonably accepting a conclusion as a tentative hypothesis, but they are not deductively valid. We argue that teleological reasoning can provide the basis for justifying the use of argument schemes both in monological and dialogical reasoning. We consider how such a teleological justification, besides being inspired by the aim of directing a bounded cognizer to (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30.  27
    The Modular Logic of Private International Law.Phan Minh Dung & Giovanni Sartor - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (2-3):233-261.
    We provide a logical analysis of private international law, a rather esoteric, but increasingly important, domain of the law. Private international law addresses overlaps and conflicts between legal systems by distributing cases between the authorities of such systems (jurisdiction) and establishing what rules these authorities have to apply to each case (choice of law). A formal model of the resulting interactions between legal systems is proposed based on modular argumentation. It is argued that this model may also be useful for (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31.  15
    A STIT Logic for Reasoning About Social Influence.Emiliano Lorini & Giovanni Sartor - 2016 - Studia Logica 104 (4):773-812.
    In this paper we propose a method for modeling social influence within the STIT approach to action. Our proposal consists in extending the STIT language with special operators that allow us to represent the consequences of an agent’s choices over the rational choices of another agent.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32.  17
    Editors' Introduction.Henry Prakken & Giovanni Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):157-161.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33.  32
    Henning Herrestad, Formal Theories of Rights.Giovanni Sartor - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (1):93-100.
  34.  13
    Introduction to the Special Issue: Simulation, Norms and Laws. [REVIEW]Giulia Andrighetto, Rosaria Conte, Eunate Mayor Villalba & Giovanni Sartor - 2012 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (4):335-337.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35.  10
    Preface.Rossella Rubino & Giovanni Sartor - 2008 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (1):1-5.
  36. Neural Networks and Fuzzy Reasoning in the Law. Special Issue.L. Philipps & G. Sartor - 1999 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 7.
  37. Handbook in Legal Reasoning and Argumentation.G. Bongiovanni, Don Postema, A. Rotolo, G. Sartor, C. Valentini & D. Walton (eds.) - 2018 - Springer.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. Legal Validity: A Conceptual and Normative Analysis.Giovanni Sartor - forthcoming - Ratio Juris.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Reasoning with Normative Systems.Giovanni Sartor - 1st ed. 2015 - In Emiliano Lorini & Andreas Herzig (eds.), The Cognitive Foundations of Group Attitudes and Social Interaction. Springer Verlag.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark