Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dialectical models in artificial intelligence and law

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dialogues and dialectics have come to playan important role in the field of ArtificialIntelligence and Law. This paper describes thelegal-theoretical and logical background of this role,and discusses the different services into whichdialogues are put. These services include:characterising logical operators, modelling thedefeasibility of legal reasoning, providing the basisfor legal justification and identifying legal issues,and establishing the law in concrete cases. Specialattention is given to the requirements oflaw-establishing dialogues.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarnio, A. 1987. The Rational as Reasonable.A Treatise on Legal Justification. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aarnio, A., Alexy, R., and Peczenik, A. 1981. The foundations of legal reasoning. Rechtstheorie 12, 133f, 257f, 423f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, H. 1968. Traktat über kritische Vernunft. Siebeck, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V. 1997. Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples. PhD-thesis. Pittsburgh.

  • Alexy, R. 1978. Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, G. E. M. 1958. On brute facts. Analysis 18, 69–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. and Rissland, E. L. 1987. But, see, accord: Generating blue book citations in HYPO, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, pp. 67–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D. 1991. Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34, 753–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, E. M. and Krabbe, E. C. W. 1982. From Axiom to Dialogue. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 1997. Arguing with cases. In A. Oskamp et al. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems; Jurix: The Tenth Conference, pp. 85–100.

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Dunne, P. E. S., and Leng, P. H. 1992. A dialogue game for dialectical interaction with expert systems. Proceedings of the 12th Expert Systems Conference. Avignon.

  • Devitt, M. 1991. Realism and Truth. 2nd edn, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. 1994. Redelijkheid in juridische argumentatie. (Rationality in legal argumentation) Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, K. and Farley, A.M. 1996. A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3/4), 163–197. Also in H. Prakken and G. Sartor (eds.), Logical Models of Legal Argumentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Geffner, H. and Pearl, J. 1992. Conditional entailment: Bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53, 209–244.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Th. F. 1994. The pleadings game: An exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 239–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Th. F. 1995. The Pleadings Game, An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Th. F. and Karacapilidis, N. 1997. The Zeno argumentation framework. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, pp. 10–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1973, Wahrheitstheorieën. In H. Fahrenbach (ed.) Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, Festschrift, für W.Schulz. Pfullingen, pp. 211–265.

  • Hage, J. C. 1987. Feiten en betekenis. Een verhandeling over ontologie en praktische rede.(Facts and Meaning; a Treatise on Ontology and Practical Reason.) PhD-thesis. Leiden.

  • Hage, J. C. 1993. Monological reason based logic. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Law and Artificial Intelligence, ACM-Press, New York, pp. 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C. 1996. A model of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3–4), 199–273. Also in H. Prakken and G. Sartor (eds.), Logical Models of Legal Argumentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 43–117.

  • Hage, J. C. 1997a. Reasoning with Rules, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C. 1997b. Legitimatietheorieën. (Theories of legitimation) in Cliteur, P. B., Labuschagne, B. C. and Smith, C. E. (eds.), Rechtsfilosofische stromingen van de twintigste eeuw. Gouda Quint, Deventer 1997, pp. 243–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C., Span, G. P. J. and Lodder, A. R. 1992, A dialogical model of legal reasoning, in Grütters, C. A. F. M., Breuker, J. A. P. J. Van den Herik, H. J. Schmidt, A. H. J. and de Vey Mestdagh, C. N.J. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Information Technology and Law, JURIX’ 92. Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C., Leenes, R., and Lodder, A. 1994. Hard cases; a procedural approach. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 113–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, H. 1995. The redundancy of precedent and analogy. Or Eat s**t, five billion flies can't be wrong. In van Eemeren, F. H. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. IV, Special Fields and Cases. sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 138–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloosterhuis, H. 1995. The study of analogy argumentation in law: four pragma-dialectical starting points. In van Eemeren, F. H. et al. eds., Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. IV, Special Fields and Cases. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 138-145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larenz, K. (1983). Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, 5th edn, Springer Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenes, R. E., Lodder, A. R., and Hage, J. C. 1994. A dialogue game for legal arguments. Law, Computers & Artificial Intelligence 3(2/3), 211–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, K. 1990. Theory of Knowledge. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodder, A. 1997. Procedural arguments. In Oskamp, A. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Jurix Conference. Amsterdam, pp. 21–32.

  • Lodder, A. 1998. DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialog Games. PhD-thesis. Maastricht.

  • Lodder, A. and Herczog, A. 1995, DiaLaw: A computational framework for dialectical reasoning. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 146–155.

  • Lorenzen, P. and Lorenz, K. 1978. Dialogische Logik. Wissenschafliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P. (1987). Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence 2, 100–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P. and Norman, J. 1995. Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3(3), 159–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P. et al. 1997. Progress on Room 5. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, pp. 207–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, D. N. 1978. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, D. N. and Weinberger, O. 1986. An Institutional Theory of Law. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitta, K., Wong, S., and Othake, Y. 1993. A computational model for trial reasoning. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Press, pp. 20–29.

  • Nitta, K., Shibasaki, M., Sakata, T., Yamaji, T., Xianchang, W., Ohsaki, H., Tojo, S., Kokubo, I., and Suzuki, T. 1995. New HELIC-II: A software tol for legal reasoning, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 287–296.

  • Peczenik, A. 1989. On Law and Reason. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The New Rhetoric; a Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11, 481–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J. L. 1994. Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence 67, 377–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. 1972. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. 1993. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. PhD-thesis. Amsterdam.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. 1997. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1996. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3/4), 331–368. Also in Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (eds.), Logical Models of Legal Argumentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1997. Reasoning with precedents in a dialogue game. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, pp. 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B., and Friedman, M. T. 1996. Bank XX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(1), 1–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiter, D. W. P. 1993. Institutional Legal Facts.Legal Powers and their Effects. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. 1994. A formal model of legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 7, 177–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwemmer, O. and Lorenzen, P. 1973. Konstruktive Logik, Ethik und Wissenschaftstheorie. Mannheim.

  • Searle, J. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. B. and Rissland, E. L. 1991. Argument moves in a rule-guided domain. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, pp. 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. B. and Rissland, E. L. 1992. Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1(1), 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, Bart 1996. Rules, Reasons, Arguments.Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. PhDthesis. Maastricht.

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1993a. Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. PhD-thesis. Amsterdam.

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1993b. Defeasible dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to defeasible argumentation. The Journal of Logic and Computation 3(3). Also in Vreeswijk, G. A.W. (ed.), Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. PhD-thesis. Amsterdam (1993).

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 1995. Representation of Formal Dispute with a Standing Order. Technical Report MATRIKS, Maastricht University, Department of Computer Science. Also in this volume.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Metajuridica, MaastrichtUniversity, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Jaap Hage

Authors
  1. Jaap Hage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hage, J. Dialectical models in artificial intelligence and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8, 137–172 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008348321016

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008348321016

Search

Navigation