The pleadings game: formalizing procedural justice

ABSTRACT

The Pleadings Game is a normative formalization and computational model of civil pleading, founded in Robert Alexy's discourse theory of legal argumentation. The consequences of arguments and counterarguments are modelled using Geffner and Pearl's non-monotonic logic, conditional entailment. Discourse is focussed using the concepts of issue and relevance. Conflicts between arguments can be resolved by arguing about the validity and priority rules, at any level. The computational model is fully implemented and has been tested using examples from Article Nine of the Uniform Commercial Code.

REFERENCES

• 1: Robert, Alexy. A Theory of Legal ArgumeniaIion. Claredon Press, Oxford, 1989.
• 2: Layman E. Allen. The Plain Language Game: Legal Writing Made Clear by Structuring it Well. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Formal Methods in Law, Sankt Augustin, 1982. German National Research Center for Computer Science (GMD).
• 3: Kevin D. Ashley, Modeling Legal Arguments: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991
• 4: Michael D. Bayles. Procedural Justice; Allocating to Individuals. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.
• 5: T.J.M. Bench-Capon and F.P. Coenen. Isomorphism and Legal Knowledge Based Systems. Artificial fntelligence and Law, 1(1):65-86, 1992.
• 6: T.J.M. Bench-Capon, P.E.S. Dunne, and P.H. Leng. Interacting with Knowledge Systems Through Dialogue Games. in Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Expert Systems and their' Applications (vol. 1), pages 123-130, Avignon, 1991.
• 7: T.J.M. Bench-Capon, P.E.S. Dunne, and P.H. Leng. A Dialogue Game for Dialectical Interaction with Expert Systems. In J.C. Rault, editor, Proceedings of A VIGNON-92 fvol. 1), Nanterre, 1992.
• 8: L. K. Branting, Representing and reusing explanations of legal precedents, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.103-110, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74029]
• 9: Walter Felscher. Dialogues as a Foundation for Intuitionistic Logic. In D. Gabby and F. Giinthnet, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic; Vol. III: Alternatives in Classical Logic, pages 341-372. D. Reidel, 1986.
• 10: Hector Geffner , Judea Pearl, Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, v.53 n.2-3, p.209-244, Feb. 1992 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(92)90071-5]
• 11: Thomas F. Gordon. The Role of Exceptions in Models of the Law. In R. Traunmiiller H. Fiedler, editor, Formalisierung im Rccht und AnsStze juristicher Ezpertensysteme, pages 52- 59. J. Schweitzer Verlag, Munich, 1986.
• 12: T. F. Gordon, An abductive theory of legal issues, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, v.35 n.1, p.95-118, July 1991 [doi>10.1016/S0020-7373(07)80009-5]
• 13: Thomas F. Gordon, Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 1995
• 14: J.C. Hage, G.P.J. Span, and A. Lodder. A Dialogical Model of Legal Reasoning. In et. al. C.A. Griitters, editor, Legal Knowledge Based Systems: InfiJrmation Technology and Law, JU- RIX '92, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 1992. Koninklijke Vermande.
• 15: Kuno Lorenz. Arithmetik und Logik als $piele. PhD thesis, Kiel, 1961.
• 16: Ronald Lout and William Chen. An Argument Game. Technical Report WUCS-92-47, Department of Computer Science, Washington University, 1992_
• 17: J. D. Mackenzie. Question-Begging in Non- Cumulative Systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8:159-177, I979.
• 18: C. C. Marshall, Representing the structure of a legal argument, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.121-127, May 1989, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/74014.74031]
• 19: L. Thorne McCarty, Clausal intuitionistic logic II. Tableau proof procedures, Journal of Logic Programming, v.5 n.2, p.93-132, June 1988 [doi>10.1016/0743-1066(88)90014-3]
• 20: John Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.
• 21: Nicholas Rescher. Dialectics. State University of New York, Albany, 1977.
• 22: Wolfgang Schuler , John B. Smith, Author's Argumentation Assistant (AAA): a hypertext-based authoring tool for argumentative texts, Hypertext: concepts, systems and applications, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1992
• 23: Y. Shoham, A semantical approach to nonmonotonic logics, Readings in nonmonotonic reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1987
• 24: David B. Skalak and Edwina L. Rissland. Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. Aritificial Intelligence and Law, 1(1):3-45, 1992.
• 25: Stephan E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 1958.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems
          Subjects: Law

Additional Classification:
  F. Theory of Computation
  F.4 MATHEMATICAL LOGIC AND FORMAL LANGUAGES
      F.4.1 Mathematical Logic

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.3 Deduction and Theorem Proving
          Subjects: Nonmonotonic reasoning and belief revision

  J. Computer Applications
  J.1 ADMINISTRATIVE DATA PROCESSING
      Subjects: Law

General Terms:
Algorithms, Languages, Legal Aspects, Theory