Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (1996)
A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoningArtificial Intelligence and Law, 4
H Prakken, G Sartor (1996)
Rules about rules: assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoningArtif Intell Law, 4
P. Dung, P. Thang (2008)
Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines in common law of contractArtificial Intelligence and Law, 17
G. Boella, Leendert Torre (2008)
Institutions with a hierarchy of authorities in distributed dynamic environmentsArtificial Intelligence and Law, 16
J. Hage (1996)
Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic
H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, Bart Verheij (2009)
Legal Evidence and Proof
G. Brewka, T. Gordon (2010)
Carneades and Abstract Dialectical Frameworks: A Reconstruction
P. Dung, R. Kowalski, Francesca Toni (2006)
Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentationArtif. Intell., 170
CE Alchourrón, D Makinson (1981)
New studies on deontic logic
C. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, D. Makinson (1985)
On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functionsJournal of Symbolic Logic, 50
H Prakken, G Sartor (2009)
Legal evidence and proof: statistics, stories, logic
G Sartor (2005)
Legal reasoning: a cognitive approach to the law, volume 5 of treatise on legal philosophy and general jurisprudence
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (1997)
Argument-Based Extended Logic Programming with Defeasible PrioritiesJ. Appl. Non Class. Logics, 7
P. Dung (1995)
On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person GamesArtif. Intell., 77
M. Sergot, F. Sadri, R. Kowalski, F. Kriwaczek, P. Hammond, H. Cory (1986)
The British Nationality Act as a logic programCommun. ACM, 29
G. Sartor (2005)
Legal Reasoning: A Cognitive Approach to Law
P. Stone (2006)
EU Private International Law: Harmonization of Laws
T. Gordon, H. Prakken, D. Walton (2007)
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proofArtif. Intell., 171
Guido Governatori, Michael Maher, G. Antoniou, D. Billington (2004)
Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible LogicJ. Log. Comput., 14
P. Dung, G. Sartor (2010)
A Logical Model of Private International Law
P. Dung, P. Thang, Nguyen Hung (2009)
Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance reliefArgument Comput., 1
S. Modgil, H. Prakken (2008)
Applying Preferences to Dialogue Graphs
PM Dung, G Sartor (2010)
Proceedings of the 10th international conference on deontic logic in computer science (DEON 2010)
H. Prakken (2010)
An abstract framework for argumentation with structured argumentsArgument Comput., 1
(1999)
A web - based revolution in Australian public administration
S. Atrill (2004)
CHOICE OF LAW IN CONTRACT: THE MISSING PIECES OF THE ARTICLE 4 JIGSAW?International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53
B. Tamanaha (2007)
Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (2009)
A logical analysis of burdens of proof
CE Alchourrón, P Gärdenfors, D Makinson (1985)
On the logic of theory change: partial meet functions for contractions and revisionsJ Symb Log, 50
H. Prakken, G. Sartor (1996)
A System for Defeasible Argumentation, with Defeasible Priorities
G. Sartor (2006)
Fundamental legal concepts: A formal and teleological characterisation*Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14
D. Svantesson (2007)
Private International Law and the Internet
D. Gabbay, Hans Ohlbach (1996)
Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning
S Modgil, H Prakken (2008)
Proceedings of COMMA-08. Computational models of argument
H. Kyburg, P. Gärdenfors (1988)
Knowledge in Flux
C. Alchourrón, D. Makinson (1981)
Hierarchies of Regulations and their Logic
Jonathan Hill (2004)
Choice Of Law In Contract Under The Rome Convention: The Approach Of The Uk CourtsInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53
We provide a logical analysis of private international law, a rather esoteric, but increasingly important, domain of the law. Private international law addresses overlaps and conflicts between legal systems by distributing cases between the authorities of such systems (jurisdiction) and establishing what rules these authorities have to apply to each case (choice of law). A formal model of the resulting interactions between legal systems is proposed based on modular argumentation. It is argued that this model may also be useful for governing the interactions between heterogeneous agents, belonging to different and differently regulated virtual societies, without recourse to a central regulatory agency. The model also provides for multiple interpretations concerning rules of private international law as well as substantive rules of the different legal systems.
Artificial Intelligence and Law – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 14, 2011
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.