skip to main content
10.1145/1276318.1276340acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicailConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules: interpreting legal rules as reasoning policies

Published: 04 June 2007 Publication History

Abstract

A knowledge representation language for defeasible legal rules is defined, whose semantics is purely procedural, based on Walton's theory of argumentation and Loui's break with the relational tradition in 'Process and Policy'. Legal rules are interpreted as reasoning policies, by mapping them in the semantics to argumentation schemes. The reasoning process is regulated by argumentation protocols. Reasoning with legal rules is viewed as applying schemes for arguments from rules to construct arguments to be put forward in dialogues.

References

[1]
T. F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game; An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Springer, New York, 1995. Book version of 1993 Ph.D. Thesis; University of Darmstadt.
[2]
T. F. Gordon, H. Prakken, and D. Walton. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 2007. In Press.
[3]
J. C. Hage. Monological reason-based logic. a low level integration of rule-based reasoning and case-based reasoning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 30--39, New York, 1993. ACM.
[4]
R. P. Loui. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14:1--38, 1998.
[5]
J. Pollock. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11(4):481--518, 1987.
[6]
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting argument in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):331--368, 1996.
[7]
J. Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
[8]
B. Verheij. Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(2-3):167--195, 2003.
[9]
D. Walton. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and LawArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-190477(1-18)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2019
  • (2018)Representing argumentation schemes with Constraint Handling Rules (CHR)Argument & Computation10.3233/AAC-1800399:2(91-119)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2018
  • (2012)Tools and Applications for Reasoning CommunitiesApproaches for Community Decision Making and Collective Reasoning10.4018/978-1-4666-1818-3.ch009(210-259)Online publication date: 2012
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules: interpreting legal rules as reasoning policies

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ICAIL '07: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
        June 2007
        302 pages
        ISBN:9781595936806
        DOI:10.1145/1276318
        • Conference Chair:
        • Anne Gardner,
        • Program Chair:
        • Radboud Winkels
        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Sponsors

        • International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law

        In-Cooperation

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 04 June 2007

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. computational models of legal reasoning and argumentation
        2. legal knowledge-based systems

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Conference

        ICAIL07
        Sponsor:

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
        Reflects downloads up to 15 Feb 2025

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2019)Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and LawArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-190477(1-18)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2019
        • (2018)Representing argumentation schemes with Constraint Handling Rules (CHR)Argument & Computation10.3233/AAC-1800399:2(91-119)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2018
        • (2012)Tools and Applications for Reasoning CommunitiesApproaches for Community Decision Making and Collective Reasoning10.4018/978-1-4666-1818-3.ch009(210-259)Online publication date: 2012
        • (2011)Araucaria-PLProceedings of the Third international congress conference on Tools for teaching logic10.5555/2021573.2021577(30-37)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2011
        • (2011)Modeling authority commitments in two search and seizure casesProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/2018358.2018384(181-188)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2011
        • (2011)Analyzing open source license compatibility issues with CarneadesProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/2018358.2018364(51-55)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2011
        • (2011)Araucaria-PL: Software for Teaching Argumentation TheoryTools for Teaching Logic10.1007/978-3-642-21350-2_4(30-37)Online publication date: 2011
        • (2009)Perseus. Software for Analyzing Persuasion ProcessFundamenta Informaticae10.5555/2364580.236458693:1-3(65-79)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2009
        • (2009)Perseus. Software for Analyzing Persuasion ProcessFundamenta Informaticae10.5555/1576070.157607693:1-3(65-79)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2009
        • (2008)MetaLex XML and the Legal Knowledge Interchange FormatComputable Models of the Law10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_2(21-41)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2008
        • Show More Cited By

        View Options

        Login options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Figures

        Tables

        Media

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media