Arguments on the Interpretation of Sources of Law

  • Robert van DoesburgEmail author
  • Tom van Engers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10791)


Many researchers have worked on formalizing legal reasoning and the representation of law. Particularly in the last decade progress has been made in creating formal models of argumentation. We aim to develop an approach that is not only formally correct, but also can be used and understood by common legal practitioners and IT-staff members. The approach should provide an instrument that can be used to inform legal experts on relevant issues when finding a solution to a case at hand. In this paper, we present a real-time case that is in discussion within the Dutch Tax Administration, the Ministry of Finance, in court as well as in Parliament. By making a structured interpretation of sources of norms relevant for the case, and argument schemes to make differences of opinion explicit, we aim to demonstrate the FLINT method for the interpretation of norms, and support a process of redesign of administrative procedures.


AI and Law Knowledge acquisition Legal knowledge-based systems E-government Argumentation 


  1. 1.
    Bench-Capon, T., et al.: A history of AI and Law in 50 papers: 25 years of the international conference on AI and Law. Artif. Intell. Law 20(3), 215–319 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T., Sartor, G.: A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif. Intell. 150(1–2), 97–143 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., et. al.: A critical analysis of legal requirements: engineering from the perspective of legal practice. In: IEEE 7th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW), Karlskrona, Sweden, pp. 14–21 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breaux, T.D.: Legal requirements acquisition for the specification of legally compliant information systems. Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh (NC) (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Doesburg, R., et. al.: Towards a method for a formal analysis of law. In: Study case Report ICT with Industry Workshop 2015, NWO (2016). Accessed 28 Apr 2017
  6. 6.
    van Doesburg, R., van Engers, T.: Perspectives on the formal representation of the interpretation of norms. In: JURIX 2016, pp. 183–186. IOS Press Amsterdam (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Doesburg, R., van Engers, T., van der Storm, T.: Calculemus: towards a formal language for the interpretation of normative systems. Artif. Intell. Justice 1, 73 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Eemeren, F.H., et al.: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Dordrecht (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Hitchcock, D., Verheij, B.: Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin (2010). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hohfeld, W.N., Cook, W.W.: Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, and Other Legal Essays. Yale University Press, New Haven (1919)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Kralingen, R.W.: Frame-Based Conceptual Models of Statute Law. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pollock, J.: Defeasible reasoning. Cognit. Sci. 11(4), 481–518 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reed, C., Rowe, G.: ARAUCARIA: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 13, 961 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Valente, A.: Legal Knowledge Engineering: A Modeling Approach. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz Center for LawUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations