|
 ABSTRACT
In this paper we apply a general account of practical reasoning to arguing about legal cases. In particular, we describe how the reasoning in one very well known property law case can be reconstructed in terms of our account. We begin by summarising our general approach which uses instantiations of an argumentation scheme to provide presumptive justifications for actions, and critical questions to identify arguments which attack these justifications. These arguments and attacks are organised into argumentation frameworks to identify the status of individual arguments. Different beliefs about, and perspectives on, the issue are represented by different agents based on the Belief-Desire-Intention model, and conditions under which these agents may advance justifications and attack them are described. We model the different views of our case in these terms, describe the resulting argumentation frameworks, and relate them to the original majority and dissenting opinions. We contend that this approach both shows the worth of the general approach and its applicability to the legal domain.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
Special issue in memory of Don Berman. In C. Hafner and E. Rissland, editors, Artificial Intelligence and Law, volume 10 (1-3), pages 79--133, 2002.
|
| |
2
|
K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Attacks on a presumptive argument scheme in multi-agent systems: pre-conditions in terms of beliefs and desires. Technical Report ULCS-04-015, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK, 2004.
|
| |
3
|
K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Justifying practical reasoning. In F. Grasso, C. Reed, and G. Carenini, editors, Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), pages 87--90, Valencia, Spain, 2004.
|
| |
4
|
K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and S. Modgil. Value added: Processing information with argumentation. In Submitted to: Second International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2005). In submission.
|
| |
5
|
T. Bench-Capon. Knowledge based systems applied to law: A framework for discussion. Knowledge Based Systems and Legal Applications, pages 329--342, 1991.
|
 |
6
|
|
| |
7
|
T. Bench-Capon. Representation of case law as an argumentation framework. In T. Bench-Capon, A. Daskalopoulu, and R. Winkels, editors, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Proceedings of Jurix 2002, pages 103--112. IOS Press: Amsterdam, 2002.
|
| |
8
|
T. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13 3:429--48, 2003.
|
| |
9
|
|
| |
10
|
T. Bench-Capon and E. Rissland. Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In B. Verheij, A. Lodder, R. Loui, and A. Muntjewerff, editors, Proceedings of JURIX 2001, pages 41--52, Amsterdman, The Netherlands, 2001. IOS Press.
|
| |
11
|
|
| |
12
|
|
| |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
|
| |
15
|
|
| |
16
|
|
| |
17
|
|
| |
18
|
|
| |
19
|
L. T. McCarty and M. S. Sridharan. A computational theory of legal argument. Technical Report LRP-TR-13, Computer Science Department, Rutgers University, 1982.
|
| |
20
|
|
| |
21
|
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4):331--368, 1996.
|
| |
22
|
S. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1958.
|
| |
23
|
A. Trollope. The American Senator. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1986.
|
| |
24
|
A. Valente. Legal Knowledge Engineering: A modelling approach. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1995.
|
| |
25
|
|
| |
26
|
D. N. Walton. Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1996.
|
| |
27
|
M. J. Wooldridge. Reasoning about Rational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000.
|
|
Adobe Acrobat
QuickTime
Windows Media Player
Real Player
Pdf