Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 181–225 | Cite as

Comparing Alternatives in the law*

Legal Applications of Qualitative Comparative Reasoning
Article

Abstract

This paper argues the thesis that a particular style of reasoning, qualitative comparative reasoning (QCR), plays a role in at least three areas of legal reasoning that are central in AI and law research, namely legal theory construction, case-based reasoning in the form of case comparison, and legal proof. The paper gives an informal exposition of one particular way to deal with QCR, based on the author’s previous work on reason-based logic (RBL). Then it contains a substantially adapted formalisation of RBL, to make RBL suitable for dealing with QCR. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of related work.

Keywords

case-based reasoning legal proof qualitative comparative reasoning reason-based logic theory construction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón, C. E., Bulygin, E. 1971Normative SystemsSpringerWienGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation through a Model and Examples. PhD-thesis Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  3. Alexy, R. (1979). Zum Begriff des Rechtprinzips, Rechtstheorie, Beiheft 1, pp. 59–87.Google Scholar
  4. Alexy, R. 1996Theorie der Grundrechten, 3e AuflageSuhrkampFrankfurt a/MGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexy, R. 2000On the Structure of Legal PrinciplesRatio Juris13294304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexy, R. 2003On Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural ComparisonRatio Juris16433449Google Scholar
  7. Ashley, K. D. 1990Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and HypotheticalsMIT-PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashley, K. D. 1991Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals in HYPOInternational Journal of Man-Machine Studies34753796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ashley, K. D. 1992Case-Based Reasoning and its implications for Legal Expert SystemsArtificial Intelligence and Law1113208Google Scholar
  10. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 2000The Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal ArgumentArtificial Intelligence and Law109497Google Scholar
  11. Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Rissland, E. L.,  et al. 2001

    Back to the Future: Dimensions Revisited

    Verheij, H. B. eds. Proceedings Jurix 2001IOS PressAmsterdam4152
    Google Scholar
  12. Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Sartor, G.,  et al. 2000

    Using Values and Theories to Resolve Disagreement in Law

    Breuker, J. eds. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Jurix ConferenceIOS PressAmsterdam7384
    Google Scholar
  13. Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Sartor, G. 2003A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and ValuesArtificial Intelligence15097143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berman, D. H., Hafner, C. 1993Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: The Missing LinkACMNew York5059Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and LawGoogle Scholar
  15. Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D. 2003Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and GeneralisationsArtificial Intelligence and Law11125165Google Scholar
  16. Brewka, G. and Gordon, T. F. (1994). How to Buy a Porsche, an Approach to Defeasible Decision Making. In Working Notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics Seattle, Washington, pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
  17. Dworkin, R. 1978Taking Rights Seriously2DuckworthLondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Dworkin, R. 1985A Matter of PrincipleClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Dworkin, R. 1986Laws EmpireFontanaLondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman, K., Farley, A. M. 1996A Model of Argumentation and Its Application to Legal ReasoningArtificial Intelligence and Law4163197Google Scholar
  21. Gordon, T. F., Karacapilidis, N. 1997The Zeno Argumentation FrameworkACMNew York1018Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and LawGoogle Scholar
  22. Hage, J. C. 1996A Model of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to MatchArtificial Intelligence and Law4199273Google Scholar
  23. Hage, J. C. 1997Reasoning with RulesKluwerDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. Hage, J. C.,  et al. 2000

    Goal-based Theory Evaluation

    Breuker, J. eds. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Jurix ConferenceIOS PressAmsterdam5972
    Google Scholar
  25. Hage, J. C. 2001Formalizing Legal CoherenceACMNew York2231Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and LawGoogle Scholar
  26. Hage, J. C., Sartor, G. 2003Legal Theory ConstructionAssociations7171184Google Scholar
  27. Hage, J. C. 2005Studies in Legal LogicSpringerBerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. Hare, R. M. 1963Freedom and ReasonOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Keeney, R. L., Raiffa, H. 1993Decision with Multiple Objectives, Preferences and Value TradeoffsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. McCarty, L. T. 1995An Implementation of Eisner v. MacomberACMNew York276286Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and LawGoogle Scholar
  31. Prakken, H., Sartor, G. 1998Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue GameArtificial Intelligence and Law6231287Google Scholar
  32. Prakken, H.,  et al. 2000

    An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case Based Reasoning

    Breuker, J. eds. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Jurix ConferenceIOS PressAmsterdam4957
    Google Scholar
  33. Prakken, H. 2002An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoningArtificial Intelligence and Law10113133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D. 2003Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations in Reasoning about EvidenceACM PressNew YorkProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, 2003Google Scholar
  35. Prakken, H. 2004Analyzing Reasoning about Evidence With Formal Models of ArgumentationLaw, Probability and Risk33350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roth, B. (2003). Case-Based Reasoning in the Law. A Formal Theory of Reasoning by Case Comparison. PhD-thesis, Maastricht.Google Scholar
  37. Sartor, G. 2002Teleological Arguments and Theory-Based DialecticsArtificial Intelligence and Law1095112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tillers P. and Green E.D. (eds) Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence: The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  39. Twining, W. L. 1985Theories of Evidence: Bentham and WigmoreStanford University PressStanfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Twining, W. L. 1991Rethinking EvidenceNorthwestern University PressEvanstonGoogle Scholar
  41. Verheij, H. B. 2003Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal LogicArtificial Intelligence and Law11167195Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MetajuridicaUniversity of MaastrichtMD MaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations