Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as

Argumentation in AI and Law: Editors' Introduction

  • Trevor J.M. Bench-Capon
  • Paul E. Dunne
Original Paper

Keywords

Logic Program Argument Scheme Legal Reasoning Argumentation Framework Legal Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  2. Ashley, K. (1990). Modelling Legal Argument. Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon T., Coenen F., Orton P. (1993) Argument Based Explanation of the British Nationality Act as a Logic Program. Computers, Law and AI 2(1):53–66Google Scholar
  4. Bench-Capon T., Sartor G. (2003) A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence 150: 97–143MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bench-Capon T., Sergot M. (1989). Towards a Rule Based Representation of Open Texture in Law. In C. Walter (ed.), Computing Power and Legal Reasoning, 39–60. Greenwood PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1984). Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game. In Proceedings JURIX 98. Nijmegen, 5–20, GNIGoogle Scholar
  7. Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2002) The Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10(2–3): 79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2003) Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3):429-448MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Berman, D. and Hafner, C. (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case-based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law. New York, 50–59, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dung P. M. (1995) On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reason, Logic Programming, and N-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Farley, A. and Freeman, K. (1995) Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law. New York, 156–164, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Gordon T. (1995) The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenwood, K., Bench-Capon, T. and McBurney, P. (2003). Towards a Computational Account of Persuasion in Law. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of AI and Law. New York, 22–31, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hage J. (1996). A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 199–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lodder, A. R. (1998). Dialaw: On legal Justification and Dialogue Games. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  16. Lutomski, L. (1989). The Design of an Attorney's Statistical Consultant. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on AI and Law. New York, 224–233, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  17. Marshall C. (1989) Representing the Structure of A Legal Argument. ACM Press, New York, pp. 121–127Google Scholar
  18. Prakken, H. (1993). A Logical Framework for Modelling Legal Argument. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of AI and Law. New York, 1–10, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  19. Prakken H. (2002a) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 113–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Prakken, H. (2002b). Incomplete Arguments in Legal Discourse: A Case Study. In Bench-Capon, T., Daskalopulu, A. and Winkels, R. (eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference. 93–102, IOS Press.Google Scholar
  21. Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003). Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations in Reasoning about Evidence. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on AI and Law. New York, 32–41, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  22. Prakken, H., C. Reed, and D. Walton: 2005, Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on AI and Law. New York, pp. 115–124, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4.Google Scholar
  24. Sartor G. (2002) Teleological Arguments and Theory-based Dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sergot M., Sadri F., Kowalski R., Kriwaczek F., Hammond P., Cory H. (1986) The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Comm. of the ACM 29(5): 370–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skalak, D. and Rissland. E. (1992). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1.Google Scholar
  27. Toulmin, S. (1959). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning.Google Scholar
  29. Zeleznikow, J. and Stranieri, A. (1995). The Split-Up system. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law. New York, 185–195, ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations