From logic to dialectics in legal argument

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

From logic to dialectics in legal argument

Full text

Pdf (967 KB)

Source

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law archive
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law table of contents

College Park, Maryland, United States

Pages: 165 - 174

Year of Publication: 1995

ISBN:0-89791-758-8

Author

Henry Prakken

Computer/Law Institute, Faculty of Law, Free University, Amsterdam

Sponsors

IAAIL : Intl Asso for Artifical Intel & Law
UMIACS : U of MD Inst for Advanced Comp Studies
SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 7, Downloads (12 Months): 37, Citation Count: 7

Additional Information:

references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/222092.222230 What is a DOI?

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	R. Alexy, A theory of legal argumentation. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989.
	2	N. Asher and M. Morreau, Commonsense entailment: a modal theory of nonmonotonic reasoning. Proceedings iJCAI 199i, 387-392.
	3	Andrei Bondarenko , Francesca Toni , Robert A. Kowalski, An assumption-based framework for non-monotonic reasoning, Proceedings of the second international workshop on Logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning, p.171-189, June 1993, Lisbon
	4	Gerhard Brewka, Reasoning about priorities in default logic, Proceedings of the twelfth national conference on Artificial intelligence (vol. 2), p.940-945, October 1994, Seattle, Washington, United States
	5	G. Brewka, A reconstruction of Rescher's theory of formal disputation based on default logic. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 366-370.
	6	G. Brewka and T.F. Gordon, ttow to buy a Porsche: an approach to defensible decision making. Preliminary report. Proceedings AAAI-9~ workshop on Computational Dialectics.
	7	P.M. Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning ~nd logic programming Proceedings IjCA L 93.
	8	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]
	9	T.F. Gordon, The pleadings game. An Artificial-D~telligcnce model of procedural justiceo Doctoral dissertation Technische Hochschule D~rmstadt, 1993.
	10	R.P. Loui, Process and policy: resourcebounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Report WUCS-92-43, Washington-Universityin-St-Louis, 1993.
	11	Ronald P. Loui , Jeff Norman , Jon Olson , Andrew Merrill, A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.202-211, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.159002]
	12	J.L. Pollock, Defeasible reasoni.tig. Cognitive Science 11 (1987), 481-518.
	13	II. Prakken, Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam, 1993.
	14	H. Prakken and G. Sartor, On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities. These proceedings.
	15	N. Rescher, Dialectics: a coT~troversy- oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New 5%rk Press, Albany, 1977.
	16	E.L. Rissland, Artificial Intelligence and Law: stepping stones to a model of legal reasoning.)~le Law Review vol. 99 (1990), 1957-1981.
	17	Giovanni Sartor, A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.192-201, June 15-18, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/158976.159001]
	18	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]
	19	S. Toulmin, The uses of argume~,t. Cambridge University Press, 1958.
	20	G. Vreeswijk, Studies in defensible argumerration. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam, 1993.
	21	G. Vreeswijk, Defensible dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. Jottrnal of Logic and Computation, 1993, Vol.3, No.3.

CITED BY 7

	Thomas F. Gordon , Nikos Karacapilidis, The Zeno argumentation framework, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.10-18, June 30-July 03, 1997, Melbourne, Australia
	Layman E. Allen , Charles S. Saxon, Achieving fluency in modernized and formalized Hohfeld: puzzles and games for the LEGAL RELATIONS Language, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.19-28, June 30-July 03, 1997, Melbourne, Australia
	Daniela V. Carbogim , David Robertson , John Lee, Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.15 n.2, p.119-149, June 2000
	Leen-Kiat Soh , Costas Tsatsoulis, A Real-Time Negotiation Model and A Multi-Agent Sensor Network Implementation, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, v.11 n.3, p.215-271, November 2005
	Nikos Karacapilidis , Dimitris Papadias, A computational approach for argumentative discourse in multi‐agent decision making environments, AI Communications, v.11 n.1, p.21-33, January 1998
	T. J. M. Bench-Capon , Paul E. Dunne, Argumentation in artificial intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, v.171 n.10-15, p.619-641, July, 2007
	Thomas F. Gordon , Douglas Walton, The Carneades Argumentation FrameworkUsing Presumptions and Exceptions to Model Critical Questions, Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, p.195-207, May 25, 2006