The British Nationality Act as a logic program
Communications of the ACM
The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Hart's critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism
ICAIL '95 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Hard cases: a procedural approach
Artificial Intelligence and Law
The Zeno argumentation framework
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Logical tools for legal argument: a practical assessment in the domain of tort
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Modelling reasoning about evidence in legal procedure
Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law
Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice
Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice
Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law
Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument: A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law
The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: A Critical Survey
Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, Essays in Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part II
The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof
Artificial Intelligence
A formal model of adjudication dialogues
Artificial Intelligence and Law
An Asymmetric Protocol for Argumentation Games in Defeasible Logic
Agent Computing and Multi-Agent Systems
Formalising ordinary legal disputes: a case study
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
More on Presumptions and Burdens of Proof
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference
Legal rules and argumentation in a metalogic framework
Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference
Argumentation based contract monitoring in uncertain domains
IJCAI'07 Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on Artifical intelligence
Translating the Japanese Presupposed Ultimate Fact Theory into Logic Programming
Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2009: The Twenty-Second Annual Conference
Dialogue games in defeasible logic
AI'07 Proceedings of the 20th Australian joint conference on Advances in artificial intelligence
A simple argumentation based contract enforcement mechanism
CIA'06 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Cooperative Information Agents
Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper investigates whether current nonmonotonic logics are suitable for formalising the defeasibility of legal reasoning. It does so by studying the role of burden of proof in legal argument, in particular how allocations of burden of proof determine the required strength of counterarguments. It is argued that the two currently available modelling approaches both have some shortcomings. On the one hand, techniques for modelling burden of proof in nonmonotonic logics do not allow for shifts of the burden of proof from one party to the other. On the other hand, current procedural models of legal argument are too rigid, in that every counterargument induces a shift of proof burdens; this fails to respect that in legal reasoning burden shifts only occur in some cases. It is then shown how current dialectical models of defeasible reasoning can be adapted to overcome these shortcomings.