A logical framework for modelling legal argument

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the relevance of the logical study of argumentation systems for AI-and-law research, in particular for modelling the adversarial aspect of legal reasoning. It does so in applying the argumentation framework of Prakken (1993a/b) to the legal domain. Three elements of the framework are particularly illustrated: firstly, its generality, in that it leaves room for any standard for comparing pairs of arguments; secondly, its ability to model the combined use of these standards; and finally, its relevance for modelling metalevel reasoning. These three features make the framework suitable as a logical framework for any theory of legal argument.

REFERENCES

• Alchourrón and Makinson 1981: C.E. Alchourr6n and D. Makinson, Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In R.Hilpinen (ed.): New studies in deontic logic, Reidel, Dordrecht 1981, 125-148.
• Brewka 1989: G. Brewka, Preferred subtheories: an extended logical framework for default reasoning. Proceedings IJCAI-1991, 1043-1048.
• Gardner 1987: Anne von der Lieth Gardner, An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987
• Gordon 1991: 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]
• Hamfelt and Barklund 1989: A. Hamfelt and J. Barklund, Metalevels in legal knowledge and their runnable representation in logic. In Preproceedings of the III International Conference on "Logica, Informatica, Diritto", Florence 1989, Vol. Ii, 557- 576.
• Pollock 1987: J.L. Pollock, Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11 (1987), 481-518.
• Poole 1985: D.L. Poole, On the comparison of theories' Preferring the most specific explanation. Proceedings IJCAI-1985, 144-147.
• Poole 1988: David Poole, A logical framework for default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, v.36 n.1, p.27-47, August 1988 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(88)90077-X]
• Prakken 1991a: Henry Prakken, A tool in modelling disagreement in law: preferring the most specific argument, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.165-174, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112666]
• Prakken 1991b: H. Prakken, Reasoning with normative hierarchies (extended abstract). Proceedings of the first international Workshop on Deontic Logic attd Computer Science, Amsterdam 1991, 315-334.
• Prakken 1993a: H. Prakken, Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Doctoral Dissertation Free University Amsterdam, 1993.
• Prakken 1993b: H. Prakken, An argumentation framework in default logic. To appear in Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.
• Rissland and Ashley 1989: E.L. Rissland and K.D. Ashley, HYPO: A precedent-based legal reasoner. In G.P.V. Vandenberghe (ed.): Advanced topics in law and information technology. Kluwer, Deventer, 1989, 213-234.
• Sartor 1992: G. Sartor, Normative conflicts in legal reasoning. Artificial InteUigence and Law, Vol. 1, Nos. 2-3, 1992, 209-235.
• Simari and Loui 1992: Guillermo R. Simari , Ronald P. Loui, A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation, Artificial Intelligence, v.53 n.2-3, p.125-157, Feb. 1992 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(92)90069-A]
• Skalak and Rissland 1991: David B. Skalak , Edwin L. Rissland, Argument moves in a rule-guided domain, Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.1-11, May 1991, Oxford, England [doi>10.1145/112646.112647]
• Vreeswijk 1991: G.A.W. Vreeswijk, Abstract argumentation systems. Proceedings of the First World Conference on the Fundamentals of AI WOCFAI '91, Paris, 1991, pp. 501-510. Also to appear in Studia Logica.

INDEX TERMS

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

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.6 SIMULATION AND MODELING

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

General Terms:
Legal Aspects, Theory