Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game

Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game 232 HENRY PRAKKEN AND GIOVANNI SATOR and Ashley, 1996). This research has provided not only computer applications, but also models and insights relevant for the theoretical understanding of judge-made law, which parallel the investigations of legal theory (e.g. MacCormick, 1978; Goldstein, 1987; Raz, 1989 and Cross and Harris, 1991). In particular, it has fo- cused on the dialectical process of citing and comparing cases, and on the various heuristics of case-based reasoning. Another development in AI & Law is logical research on nonmonotonic, or de- feasible legal reasoning (e.g. Sartor, 1992; Prakken, 1993; Gordon, 1995; Prakken and Sartor, 1996b; Verheij, 1996 and Hage, 1996, 1997). Here the main concern is to give logical accounts of legal reasoning with incomplete, uncertain or inconsis- tent knowledge. This development draws on and adds to the tools of nonmonotonic logic. A particularly useful tool has been found in logical systems for defeasible argu- mentation, which model nonmonotonic reasoning as the construction and compari- son of (logical) arguments for and against a certain proposition (e.g. Pollock, 1987; Loui, 1987; Dung, 1995; Vreeswijk, 1997). In our opinion, these systems provide a tool for connecting and integrating the two research developments just mentioned since, unlike other http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Artificial Intelligence and Law Springer Journals

Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game

Artificial Intelligence and Law , Volume 6 (4) – Oct 16, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/modelling-reasoning-with-precedents-in-a-formal-dialogue-game-RBbFMEK0QB
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics); International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law; Philosophy of Law; Legal Aspects of Computing; Information Storage and Retrieval
ISSN
0924-8463
eISSN
1572-8382
DOI
10.1023/A:1008278309945
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

232 HENRY PRAKKEN AND GIOVANNI SATOR and Ashley, 1996). This research has provided not only computer applications, but also models and insights relevant for the theoretical understanding of judge-made law, which parallel the investigations of legal theory (e.g. MacCormick, 1978; Goldstein, 1987; Raz, 1989 and Cross and Harris, 1991). In particular, it has fo- cused on the dialectical process of citing and comparing cases, and on the various heuristics of case-based reasoning. Another development in AI & Law is logical research on nonmonotonic, or de- feasible legal reasoning (e.g. Sartor, 1992; Prakken, 1993; Gordon, 1995; Prakken and Sartor, 1996b; Verheij, 1996 and Hage, 1996, 1997). Here the main concern is to give logical accounts of legal reasoning with incomplete, uncertain or inconsis- tent knowledge. This development draws on and adds to the tools of nonmonotonic logic. A particularly useful tool has been found in logical systems for defeasible argu- mentation, which model nonmonotonic reasoning as the construction and compari- son of (logical) arguments for and against a certain proposition (e.g. Pollock, 1987; Loui, 1987; Dung, 1995; Vreeswijk, 1997). In our opinion, these systems provide a tool for connecting and integrating the two research developments just mentioned since, unlike other

Journal

Artificial Intelligence and LawSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 16, 2004

References