Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
T. Gordon (1993)
The Pleadings GameArtificial Intelligence and Law, 2
심헌섭 (1983)
Robert Alexy, Theorie der juristischen Argumentation (Die Theorie der rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begrundung) Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt/M 1978, 24
A. Peczenik (1989)
On law and reason
A. Aarnio (1986)
The Rational as Reasonable
Ilmar Tammelo (1969)
Outlines of modern legal logic
H. Prakken (1995)
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
E.L. Rissland, K.D. Ashley (1989)
Advanced Topics in Law and Information Technology
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (1996)
A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoningArtificial Intelligence and Law, 4
A. Aarnio, R. Alexy, A. Peczenik (1981)
The Foundation of Legal Reasoning (I), 12
(1974)
Legal Syllogism and Rationality of Judicial Decision
U. Klug (1982)
Juristische Logik
E. Rissland, Kevin Ashley (1987)
HYPO: A Precedent-Based Legal Reasoner
J. Hage, R. Leenes, A. Lodder (1993)
Hard cases: A procedural approachArtificial Intelligence and Law, 2
F. v. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst (1982)
Regels voor Redelijke Discussies
A. Aarnio (1986)
The Rational as Reasonable: A Treatise on Legal Justification
Robert Alexy (1978)
Theorie der juristischen Argumentation : die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung
T.F. Gordon (1995)
The Pleadings Game.An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice
E. Rissland, Kevin Ashley (1987)
A case-based system for trade secrets law
Stuart Brown, H. Hart (1962)
The Concept of Law.The Philosophical Quarterly, 13
H. Prakken (1995)
From logic to dialectics in legal argument
심헌섭 (1968)
Juristische Logik von Ulrich Klug (Professor an der Universitat zu Koln) Dritte, erweiterte und veranderte Auflage Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York 1966
F. v. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst (1992)
Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies
(1991)
Interpreting Statues. A Comparative Study
N. Rescher (1977)
Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge
In this paper I investigate the similarities betweenthe dialectical procedure in the pragma-dialecticaltheory and dialectical procedures in AI and Law. I dothis by focusing on one specific type of reasoning inlaw: analogy argumentation. I will argue that analogyargumentation is not only a heuristic forfinding new premises, but also a part of thejustification of legal decisions. The relevantcriteria for the evaluation of analogy argumentationare not to be found at the logical level of inference,but at the procedural level of the discussion. I willproceed as follows. I start with an outline ofPrakken's theory of argumentation frameworks andprocedural models. Then, I will discuss Peczenik'sanalysis of analogy argumentation and try to combineit with the descriptive-normative research ofMacCormick and Summers. Finally, I propose asystematization of the criteria for the evaluation ofanalogy argumentation within the framework of apragma-dialectical notion of an argumentation scheme.
Artificial Intelligence and Law – Springer Journals
Published: Oct 3, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.