Teleological arguments and theory-based dialectics
Tóm tắt
This paper proposes to model legal reasoning asdialectical theory-constructiondirected by teleology. Precedents are viewed asevidence to be explained throughtheories. So, given a background of factors andvalues, the parties in a case canbuild their theories by using a set of operators,which are called theory constructors.The objective of each party is to provide theoriesthat both explain the evidence (theprecedents) and support the decision wished by thatparty. This leads to theory-basedargumentation, i.e., a dialectical exchange ofcompeting theories, which support opposedoutcomes by explaining the same evidence and appealingto the same values. The winneris the party that can reply with a more coherent theoryto all theories of its adversary.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alexy, R. and Peczenik, A. (1990). The Concept of Coherence and Its Significance for Discursive Rationality. Ratio Juris 3: 130–147.
Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. MIT: Cambridge, MA.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1999). Some Observations on Modelling Case-Based Reasoning with Formal Argument Models. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, 36–42. ACM Press: New York.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2000). The Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 79–94.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Sartor, O. (2001a). Using Values and Theories to Resolve Disagreement in Law. In Breuker, J. Leenes, R. and Winkels, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems JURJX 2000, 73–84. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Sartor, O. (2001b). Based Explanation of Case Law Domains. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12–21. ACM: New York.
Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law, 50–59. ACM Press: New York.
Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. D. (1995). Understanding Precedents in a Temporal Context of Evolving Legal Doctrine. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 42–51. ACM Press: New York.
Gordon, T. F. (1995). The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Sciences. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs (NJ).
McCarty, L. T. (1997). Some Arguments About Legal Arguments. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 215–224. ACM Press: New York.
Prakken, H. (2000). An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case Based Reasoning. In Breuker, J., Leenes, R., and Winkels, R. (eds) Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix 2000, 49–57. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
Prakken, H. (2001). Modelling Reasoning about Evidence in Legal Procedure. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 119–128. ACM Press: New York.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, O. (1997). Rules about Rules: Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, O. (1998). Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 6: 231–287.
Smith, J. C. and Deedman, C. (1987). The Application of Expert Systems Technology to Case-Based Law. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 84–93. ACM Press: New York.
Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton University Press: Princeton (NJ).
Thagard, P. (2001). Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.