Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: A Critical Survey

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2408))

Abstract

This article surveys the use of logic in computational models of legal reasoning, against the background of a four-layered view on legal argument. This view comprises a logical layer (constructing an argument); a dialectical layer (comparing and assessing conflicting arguments); a procedural layer (regulating the process of argumentation); and a strategic, or heuristic layer (arguing persuasively). Each further layer presupposes, and is built around the previous layers. At the first two layers the information base is fixed, while at the third and fourth layer it is constructed dynamically, during a dialogue or dispute.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. V. Aleven and K.D. Ashley. Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 170–179, New York, 1997. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. Alexy. Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als eine Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  3. L.E. Allen and C.S. Saxon. Relationship of expert systems to the operation of a legal system. In Preproceedings of the III International Conference on “Logica, Informatica, Diritto” (Appendix), pages 1–15, Florence, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  4. T.J.M. Bench-Capon and G. Sartor. Theory based explanation of case law domains. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 12–21, New York, 2001. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. T.J.M. Bench-Capon, G.O. Robinson, T.W. Routen, and M.J. Sergot. Logic programming for large scale applications in law: a formalisation of supplementary benefit legislation. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 190–198, New York, 1987. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. T.J.M. Bench-Capon. Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. JURIX: The Eleventh Conference, pages 5–19, Nijmegen, 1998. Gerard Noodt Instituut.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Bondarenko, P.M. Dung, R.A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93:63–101, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. L.K. Branting. A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:1–31, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. G. Brewka and T.F. Gordon. How to buy a porsche, an approach to defeasible decision making. In Working Notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics, pages 28–38, Seattle, Washington, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  10. G. Brewka. A logical reconstruction of Rescher’s theory of formal disputation based on default logic. In Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 366–370, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Brewka. Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11:257–282, 2001.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. P.M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321–357, 1995.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. R.M. Dworkin. Is law a system of rules? In R.M. Dworkin, editor, The Philosophy of Law, pages 38–65. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  14. K. Freeman and A.M. Farley. A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:163–197, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. A. Gardner. Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. H. Geffner. Default reasoning: causal and conditional theories. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Logic programs with classical negation. In Proceedings of the Seventh Logic Programming Conference, pages 579–597, Cambridge, MA, 1990. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M.R. Genesereth and N.J. Nilsson. Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, Palo Alto, CA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  19. T.F. Gordon and N. Karaçapilidis. The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 10–18, New York, 1997. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. T.F. Gordon. An abductive theory of legal issues. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35:95–118, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. T.F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:239–292, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. T.F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. Habermas. Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. p, Frankfurt, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J.C. Hage, R.E. Leenes, and A.R. Lodder. Hard cases: a procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2:113–166, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. J.C. Hage. A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:199–273, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. J.C. Hage. Reasoning With Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Law and Philosophy Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  27. C.L. Hamblin. Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37:130–155, 1971.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. A. Hamfelt. Formalizing multiple interpretation of legal knowledge. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3:221–265, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. J. Horty. Precedent, deontic logic, and inheritance. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 63–72, New York, 1999. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. J. Horty. Argument construction and reinstatement in logics for defeasible reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 9:1–28, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 53–62, New York, 1999. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. A.J.I. Jones and M.J. Sergot. Deontic logic in the representation of law: towards a methodology. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1:45–64, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. A.C. Kakas, R.A. Kowalski, and F. Toni. Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2:719–770, 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. R.A. Kowalski and M.J. Sergot. The use of logical models in legal problem solving. Ratio Juris, 3:201–218, 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. R.A. Kowalski and F. Toni. Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:275–296, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. R.A. Kowalski. The treatment of negation in logic programs for representing legislation. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 11–15, New York, 1989. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. R.A. Kowalski. Legislation as logic programs. In Z. Bankowski, I. White, and U. Hahn, editors, Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Law and Philosophy Library, pages 325–356. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  38. S. Kraus, K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik. Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104:1–69, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. A.R. Lodder. DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  40. R.P. Loui and J. Norman. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3:159–189, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. R.P. Loui, J. Norman, J. Olson, and A. Merrill. A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 202–211, New York, 1993. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. R.P. Loui, J. Norman, J. Alpeter, D. Pinkard, D. Craven, J. Linsday, and M. Foltz. Progress on Room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 207–214, New York, 1997. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. R.P. Loui. Hart’s critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 21–30, New York, 1995. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. R.P. Loui. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14:1–38, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. J.D. MacKenzie. Four dialogue systems. Studia Logica, 51:567–583, 1990.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. L.T. McCarty and N.S. Sridharan. The representation of an evolving system of legal concepts: II. Prototypes and deformations. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 246–253, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  47. L.T. McCarty. A language for legal discourse I. basic features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 180–189, New York, 1989. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. L.T. McCarty. An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 276–286, New York, 1995. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. K. Nitta and M. Shibasaki. Defeasible reasoning in Japanese criminal jurisprudence. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 5:139–159, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. D. Nute. Inferences, rules, and instrumentalism. International Journal of Expert Systems, 5:267–274, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  51. D. Nute, editor. Defeasible Deontic Logic, volume 263 of Synthese Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1997.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N.R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8:261–292, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  53. A. Peczenik. Jumps and logic in the law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:297–329, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. J.L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  55. D.L. Poole. A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 36:27–47, 1988.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  56. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331–368, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 7:25–75, 1997.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  58. H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6:231–287, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. H. Prakken and G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In D. Gabbay and F. Günthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 4, pages 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, second edition, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  60. H. Prakken. From logic to dialectics in legal argument. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 165–174, New York, 1995. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. H. Prakken. Two approaches to the formalisation of defeasible deontic reasoning. Studia Logica, 57:73–90, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. H. Prakken. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Argumentation in Law. Law and Philosophy Library. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  63. H. Prakken. On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logic for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA’ 2000), number 1919 in Springer Lecture Notes in AI, pages 224–238, Berlin, 2000. Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  64. H. Prakken. Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 48:253–271, 2001.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  65. H. Prakken. Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 119–128, New York, 2001. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. H. Prakken. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 127:187–219, 2001.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  67. H. Prakken. An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10, 2002. in press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. J. Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  69. J. Raz. Practical Reason and Norms. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  70. N. Rescher. Dialectics: a Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany, N.Y., 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  71. E.L. Rissland and K.D. Ashley. A case-based system for trade secrets law. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 60–66, New York, 1987. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. E.L. Rissland and D.B. Skalak. CABARET: statutory interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34:839–887, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. T. Routen and T.J.M. Bench-Capon. Hierarchical formalizations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35:69–93, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. G. Sartor. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. In Z. Bankowski, I. White, and U. Hahn, editors, Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Law and Philosophy Library, pages 119–157. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  75. G. Sartor. Logic and argumentation in legal reasoning. Current Legal Theory, pages 25–63, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  76. M.J. Sergot, F. Sadri, R.A. Kowalski, F. Kriwaczek, P. Hammond, and H.T. Cory. The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Communications of the ACM, 29:370–386, 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. M.J. Sergot. Representing legislation as logic programs. In J.E. Hayes, D. Michie, and J. Richards, editors, Machine Intelligence, volume 11, pages 209–260. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  78. G.R. Simari and R.P. Loui. A mathematical treatment of defeasible argumentation and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 53:125–157, 1992.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  79. H. Simon. Models of Bounded Rationality, volume 2 (collected papers). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  80. D.B. Skalak and E.L. Rissland. Arguments and cases. an inevitable intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1:3–44, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. S.E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  82. B. Verheij, J.C. Hage, and H.J. van der Herik. An integrated view on rules and principles. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6:3–26, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. B. Verhei. Rules, reasons, arguments: formal studies of argumentation and defeat. Doctoral dissertation University of Maastricht, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  84. B. Verheij. Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 43–52, New York, 1999. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  85. G.A.W. Vreeswijk. Representation of formal dispute with a standing order. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8:205–231, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. D.N. Walton and E.C.W. Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  87. P.H. Winston. Learning and reasoning by analogy. Communications of the ACM, 23:689–703, 1980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

    Henry Prakken

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Bologna, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor

Authors
  1. Henry Prakken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giovanni Sartor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, 75 Kallipoleos St., 1678, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Antonis C. Kakas

  2. Department of Computing, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, 180 Queen’s Gate, London, SW7 2BZ, UK

    Fariba Sadri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Prakken, H., Sartor, G. (2002). The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: A Critical Survey. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2408. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45632-5_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45632-5_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43960-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45632-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation