Legal rules and argumentation in a metalogic framework

Authors:
Jenny Eriksson Lundström;Jørgen Fischer Nilsson;Andreas Hamfelt
Affiliations:
Department of Information Science, Computer Science, Uppsala University, Sweden;Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Computer Science and Engineering, Technical University of Denmark;Department of Information Science, Computer Science, Uppsala University, Sweden
Venue:
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
Year:
2007

Citing 13
Cited 2

On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games

Artificial Intelligence
Reasoning with precedents in a dialogue game

Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Artificial intelligence: a new synthesis

Artificial intelligence: a new synthesis
Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search

Communications of the ACM
Logical models of argument

ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
A formal approach to protocols and strategies for (legal) negotiation

Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic

Journal of Logic and Computation
Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation

Artificial Intelligence
A metalogic formalization of legal argumentation as game trees with defeasible reasoning

ICAIL '05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?

Fundamenta Informaticae - Deontic Logic in Computer Science
Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion

Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
A rule-sceptic characterization of acceptable legal arguments

Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Presumptions and Burdens of Proof

Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference

A Common Framework for Board Games and Argumentation Games

Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XX
Towards a dynamic metalogic implementation of legal argumentation

Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In this paper we show how to address legal argumentation as a dialectic process using a metalogic defeasible framework. We provide a formal model in which, the argumentation of the parties can be analyzed computationally. Further we argue that the accommodation of legal reasoning by using hierarchical defeasible theories of [7] provides a comprehensive alternative for constructing legally acceptable and meaningful theories of case-adapted jurisprudence with the purpose of facilitating legal audits and the preparation of appeals to a higher tribunal.