Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 3–26 | Cite as

An Integrated View on Rules and Principles

  • Bart Verheij
  • Jaap C. Hage
  • H. Jaap Van Den Herik


In the law, it is generally acknowledged that there are intuitive differences between reasoning with rules and reasoning with principles. For instance, a rule seems to lead directly to its conclusion if its condition is satisfied, while a principle seems to lead merely to a reason for its conclusion. However, the implications of these intuitive differences for the logical status of rules and principles remain controversial.

A radical opinion has been put forward by Dworkin (1978). The intuitive differences led him to argue for a strict logical distinction between rules and principles. Ever since, there has been a controversy whether the intuitive differences between rules and principles require a strict logical distinction between the two. For instance, Soeteman (1991) disagrees with Dworkin's opinion, and argues that rules and principles cannot be strictly distinguished, and do not have a different logical structure.

In this paper, we claim that the differences between rules and principles are merely a matter of degree. We give an integrated view on rules and principles in which rules and principles have the same logical structure, but different behavior in reasoning. In this view, both rules and principles are considered to consist of a condition and a conclusion. The observed differences between rules and principles are, in our view, the result of different types of relations that they have with other rules and principles. In the integrated view, typical rules and typical principles are the extremes of a spectrum.

We support our claim by giving an explicit formalization of our integrated view using the recently developed formal tools provided by Reason-Based Logic. As an application of our view on rules and principles, we give three ways of reconstructing reasoning by analogy.


Artificial Intelligence Explicit Formalization Computational Linguistic Logical Status Logical Structure 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexy, R. 1979. Zum Begriff des Rechtsprinzips. Rechtstheorie. Beiheft 1. Argumentation und Hermeneutik in der Jurizprudenz. In W. Krawietz, K. Opalek, A. Peczenik, and A. Schramm (eds.), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp. 59-87.Google Scholar
  2. Ashley, K. 1990. Modeling Legal Argument. Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals.The MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts).Google Scholar
  3. Chalmers, D., French, R., and Hofstadter, D. 1995. High-level perception, representation, and analogy: A critique of artificial-intelligence methodology. In D. Hofstadter & the Fluid Analogies Research Group (eds.), Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thoughts. Basic Books, New York (New York), pp. 169-193.Google Scholar
  4. Dworkin, R. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. New Impression with a Reply to Critics.Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
  5. Hage, J. C. 1991. Monological reason based reasoning. in J. A. Breuker, R.V. de Mulder and J. C. Hage (eds.), Legal Knowledge based Systems. Model-Based Legal Reasoning. Vermande, Lelystad, pp. 77-91.Google Scholar
  6. Hage, J. C. 1996. A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law4, 199-273.Google Scholar
  7. Hage, J. C. 1997. Reasoning with Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Hage, J. C. and Verheij, B. 1994. Reason-based logic: a logic for reasoning with rules and reasons. Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence3(2/3), 171-209. Also published as report SKBS/B3.A/94-10.Google Scholar
  9. Kaptein, H. 1994. The Redundancy of Precedent and Analogy. Or: Eat S**t, Five Billion Flies Can’t Be Wrong. 1994 ISSA Congress. Google Scholar
  10. Loui, R. P. and Norman, J. 1995. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law3, 159-189.Google Scholar
  11. Peczenik, A. 1996. Jumps and logic in the law. What can one expect from logical models of legal argumentation? Artificial Intelligence and Law4, 297-329.Google Scholar
  12. Perlis, D. and Subrahmanian, V. S. 1994. Meta-languages, reflection principles and self-reference. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger and J. A. Robinson (eds.), Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming. Volume 2. Deduction Methodologies. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 323-358.Google Scholar
  13. Prakken, H. 1993. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument.Doctoral thesis, Free University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Prakken, Henry 1995. From logic to dialectics in legal argument. The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, pp. 165-174.Google Scholar
  15. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1995. On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic properties. The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, pp. 1-10.Google Scholar
  16. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1996. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law4, 331-368.Google Scholar
  17. Sartor, G. 1994. A formal model of legal argumentation. Ratio Juris7(2), 177-211.Google Scholar
  18. Soeteman, A. 1991. Hercules aan het werk. Over de rol van rechtsbeginselen in het recht. Rechtsbeginselen, Ars Aequi, Nijmegen, pp. 41-56.Google Scholar
  19. Tiscornia, D. 1994. Three meanings of analogical reasoning in law. In I. Carr, and A. Narayanan (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Law, Computers and Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of Exeter, pp. 137-153.Google Scholar
  20. Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The Uses of Argument.University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Verheij, B. 1996a. Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Dissertation Universiteit Maastricht. A summary and table of contents are available on the World-Wide Web at∼bart/proefschrift/.Google Scholar
  22. Verheij, B. 1996b. An integrated view on rules and principles. In R. W. van Kralingen, H. J. van den Herik, J. E. J. Prins, M. Sergot, and J. Zeleznikow (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems. Foundations of Legal Knowledge Systems. Tilburg University Press. Also published as report SKBS/B3.A/96-05, pp. 25-38.Google Scholar
  23. Verheij, B. and Hage, J. C. 1994. Reasoning by analogy: a formal reconstruction. In H. Prakken, A. J. Muntjewerff and A. Soeteman (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems. The Relation with Legal Theory. Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, pp. 65-78. Also published as report SKBS/B3.A/94-14.Google Scholar
  24. Yoshino, H. 1995. The systematization of legal meta-inference. The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, pp. 266-275.Google Scholar
  25. Yoshino, H., Haraguchi, M., Sakurai, S. and Kagayama, S. 1993. Towards a legal analogical reasoning system: knowledge representation and reasoning methods. The Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, pp. 110-116.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bart Verheij
    • 1
  • Jaap C. Hage
    • 1
  • H. Jaap Van Den Herik
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MetajuridicaUniversiteit MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Law and InformaticsLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations