Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 11, Issue 2–3, pp 167–195 | Cite as

Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic

  • Bart Verheij
Article

Abstract

This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes a notion borrowed from the .eld of argumentation theory - are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e., valid in certain contexts or under certain circumstances. A method is presented to analyze argumentation schemes and it is shown how argumentation schemes can be embedded in a formal model of dialectical argumentation.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Generalize Rule Formal Model Formal Analysis Computational Linguistic 
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. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Sartor, G. (2003). A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2): 97–143.Google Scholar
  2. Copi, I. M. (1982). Introduction to Logic, 6th Ed. Macmillan: New York.Google Scholar
  3. Gamut, L. T. F. (1991). Logic, Language, and Meaning. Introduction to Logic. Vol. I. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago (Illinois).Google Scholar
  4. Girle, R., Hitchcock, D. L., McBurney, P., and Verheij, B. (2003). Decision Support for Practical Reasoning: A Theoretical and Computational Perspective. Reed, C. and Norman, T. J. (eds.) Argumentation Machines. New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, 55–84. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Hage, J. C. (1993). Monological Reason Based Logic. A Low Level Integration of Rule-based Reasoning and Case-based Reasoning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30–39. ACM: New York.Google Scholar
  6. Hage, J. C. (1997). Reasoning with Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Hage, J. C. (2001). Legal Logic. Its Existence, Nature and Use. Soeteman A. (ed.) Pluralism and Law, 347–373. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Hastings, A. (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  9. Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommannn-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  10. McBurney, P. and Parsons, S. (2000). Tenacious Tortoises: A Formalism for Argument over Rules of Inference. Computational Dialectics (ECAI 2000 Workshop), Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  11. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971/1958). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame/London, French original first published in 1958.Google Scholar
  12. Pollock, J. L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.Google Scholar
  13. Pollock, J. L. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Prakken, H. (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  15. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.Google Scholar
  16. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1998). Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231–287.Google Scholar
  17. Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D. N. (2003). Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations in Reasoning about Evidence. In proceedings of The Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law 32–41. ACM: New York.Google Scholar
  18. Reed, C. and Walton, D. N. (2001). Applications of Argumentation Schemes. Argumentation and its Applications. In Hansen, H. V., Tindale, C. W., Blair, J. A. and Johnson, R. H. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001)Google Scholar
  19. Reiter, R. (1980). A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13: 81–132.Google Scholar
  20. Roth, A. C. (2003). Case-based Reasoning in the Law. A Formal Theory of Reasoning by Case Comparison. Dissertation. Universiteit Maastricht.Google Scholar
  21. Soeteman, A. (1989). Logic in Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  22. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  23. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., and Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  24. Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal studies of argumentation and defeat. Dissertation Universiteit Maastricht.Google Scholar
  25. Verheij, B. (1999a). Automated Argument Assistance for Lawyers. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 43–52. ACM: New York.Google Scholar
  26. Verheij, B. (1999b). Logic, Context and Valid Inference. Or: Can there be a Logic of Law? van den Herik, H. J., Moens, M.-F., Bing, J., van Buggenhout, B., Zeleznikow, J. and Grütters, C. A. F. M. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems. JURIX 1999: The 12th Conference 109–121. Gerard Noodt Instituut: Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  27. Verheij, B. (2000). Book Review: Formalism and Interpretation in the Logic of Law. (review of H. Prakken's 'Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument '). Artificial Intelligence and Law 8: 35–65.Google Scholar
  28. Verheij, B. (2001a). Legal Decision Making as Dialectical Theory Construction with Argumentation Schemes. In proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 225–226. ACM: New York.Google Scholar
  29. Verheij, B. (2001b). Book Review of D. Walton's 'The New Dialectic', 'Ad Hominem Arguments' and 'One-Sided Arguments'. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9: 305–313.Google Scholar
  30. Verheij, B. (2003a). DefLog: On the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13 (3): 319–346.Google Scholar
  31. Verheij, B. (2003b). Artificial Argument Assistants for Defeasible Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2): 291–324.Google Scholar
  32. Verheij, B. (2003c). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: Towards a Methodology for the Investigation of Argumentation Schemes. In van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A. and Snoeck Henkemans, F. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA 2002) 1033–1037. Sic Sat, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  33. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  34. Walton, D. N. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bart Verheij
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of GroningenThe Netherland; E-mail:

Personalised recommendations