skip to main content
10.1145/2514601.2514619acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicailConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Modeling teleological interpretation

Published: 10 June 2013 Publication History

Abstract

The paper presents a model of teleological interpretation of statutory legal rules as well as an example of the genuine law case, which has been modeled with use of established methodology.

References

[1]
M. Atienza and J. Ruiz Manero. A Theory of Legal Sentences. Springer, 1989.
[2]
T. Bench-Capon. The missing link revisited: The role of teleology in representing legal argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law, (December 1999):79--94, 2002.
[3]
T. Bench-Capon. What makes a system a legal expert? In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX)., pages 11--20, Amsterdam, 2012. IOS.
[4]
T. Bench-Capon, K. Atkinson, and A. Chorley. Persuasion and value in legal argument. J. Log. and Comput., 15(6):1075--1097, Dec. 2005.
[5]
T. Bench-Capon and H. Prakken. Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, (2009):1--20, 2010.
[6]
T. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2):97--143, 2003.
[7]
D. H. Berman and C. D. Hafner. Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. pages 50--59, 1993.
[8]
M. Grabmair and K. Ashley. Facilitating case comparison using value judgments and intermediate legal concepts. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pages 161--170, 2011.
[9]
M. Grabmair and K. D. Ashley. Argumentation with value judgments an example of hypothetical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2010 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2010: The Twenty-Third Annual Conference, pages 67--76, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, The Netherlands, 2010. IOS Press.
[10]
C. Hafner and D. Berman. The role of context in case-based legal reasoning: teleological, temporal, and procedural. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10:19--64, 2002.
[11]
J. Hage. Teleological reasoning in reason-based logic. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL '95, pages 11--20, New York, NY, USA, 1995. ACM.
[12]
J. Hage. Studies in Legal Logic. Springer, 2005.
[13]
F. Macagno, D. Walton, and G. Sartor. Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation. In M. Araszkiewicz, M. Myska, T. Smejkalova, J. Savelka, and skop M., editors, Argumentation. International Conference on Alternative Methods o Argumentation in Law., pages 61--76, Brno, 2012.
[14]
N. MacCormick and R. Summers. Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative Study. Ashgate, Dartmouth, 1991.
[15]
A. Peczenik. Jumps and logic in the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, (4):296--329, 1996.
[16]
H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10:113--133, 2002.
[17]
G. Sartor. Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10:95--112, 2002.
[18]
G. Sartor. Legal concepts as inferential nodes and ontological categories. Artif. Intell. Law, 17(3):217--251, Sept. 2009.
[19]
G. Sartor. Doing justice to rights and values: teleological reasoning and proportionality. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18, 2010.
[20]
G. Sartor and J. Hage. Legal theory construction. Associations, 7:171--184, 2003.
[21]
J. Wróblewski. The Judicial Application of Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ICAIL '13: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
June 2013
277 pages
ISBN:9781450320801
DOI:10.1145/2514601
  • Conference Chair:
  • Enrico Francesconi,
  • Program Chair:
  • Bart Verheij
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

  • ITTIG-CNR: Istituto di Teoria e Tecniche dell'Informazione Giuridica - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
  • IAAIL: Intl Asso for Artifical Intel & Law

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 June 2013

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. argumentation
  2. reasoning
  3. teleological interpretation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ICAIL '13
Sponsor:
  • ITTIG-CNR
  • IAAIL

Acceptance Rates

ICAIL '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 17 of 53 submissions, 32%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)19
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 19 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Identification of Legislative ErrorsProceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/3594536.3595172(2-11)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
  • (2022)The Study of Artificial Intelligence as LawLaw and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-94-6265-523-2_24(477-502)Online publication date: 6-Jul-2022
  • (2020)Artificial intelligence as lawArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-020-09266-0Online publication date: 14-May-2020
  • (2018)Developing Rule-Based Expert System for People with Disabilities – The Case of Succession LawAI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems10.1007/978-3-030-00178-0_12(187-201)Online publication date: 23-Oct-2018
  • (2017)Combining fuzzy logic and formal argumentation for legal interpretationProceedings of the 16th edition of the International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law10.1145/3086512.3086532(49-58)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2017
  • (2017)Goals, values, and reasoningExpert Systems with Applications: An International Journal10.1016/j.eswa.2016.11.00871:C(442-456)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2017
  • (2017)The Logical Approach of Legal ArgumentationFundamentals of Legal Argumentation10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4_2(23-47)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2017
  • (2016)A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using Abstract Dialectical FrameworksArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-016-9178-124:1(1-49)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2016
  • (2015)Representation of an actual divorce dispute in the parenting plan support systemProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law10.1145/2746090.2746119(166-170)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2015
  • (2015)Argument Structures in Legal Interpretation: Balancing and ThresholdsArgument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation10.1007/978-3-319-16148-8_9(129-150)Online publication date: 2015
  • 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