Skip Navigation



Journal of Logic and Computation Advance Access published online on March 26, 2009
Journal of Logic and Computation, doi:10.1093/logcom/exp009
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in J Logic Computation
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wyner, A.
Right arrow Articles by Bench-Capon, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author, 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Original Papers

Modelling Judicial Context in Argumentation Frameworks*

Adam Wyner and Trevor Bench-Capon

Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
E-mail: adam{at}wyner.info; tbc{at}liverpool.ac.uk

Received 20 August 2008.

Much work using argumentation frameworks (AFs) treats arguments as entirely abstract, related by a uniform attack relation that always succeeds unless the attacker can itself be defeated. However, this does not seem adequate for legal argumentation. Some proposals have suggested regulating attack relations using preferences or values on arguments and that filter the attack relation, so that, depending on the audience addressed, some attacks fail and so can be removed from the framework. This does not, however, capture a central feature of legal reasoning: how a decision with respect to the same facts and legal reasoning varies as the judicial context varies. Nor does it capture related context-dependent features of legal reasoning, such as how an audience can prefer or value an argument, yet be constrained by precedent or authority not to accept it. Nor does it explain how certain types of attack may not be allowed in a particular procedural context. For this reason, evaluation of the status of arguments within a given framework must be allowed to depend not only on the attack relations along with the preference or value of arguments, but also on the nature of the attacks and the context in which they are made. We present a means to represent these features, enabling us to account for a number of factors currently considered to be beyond the remit of formal AFs. We give several examples of the use of approach including: appealing a case, overruling a precedent and rehearing of a case as a civil rather than criminal proceeding.

Keywords: argumentation; legal reasoning; precedent; precedence; procedure

* A previous version of this article appears as [30].



References

  1. Aleven V. Teaching Case-based Argumentation through a Model and Examples (1997) University of Pittsburgh. PhD thesis.
  2. Amgoud L, Cayrol C. On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. (1998) CA, USA: San Francisco. 1-a–7. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-98), Morgan Kaufmann.
  3. Ashley K. Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals (1990) MA; Bradford Books/MIT Press: Cambridge.
  4. Ashley KD, Brüninghaus S. A predictive role for intermediate legal concepts. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Proceedings of Jurix 2003—Bourcier D, ed. (2003) Amsterdam: IOS Press. 153–162.
  5. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T. Legal case-based reasoning as practical reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2006) 13:93–131.[CrossRef]
  6. Bench-Capon TJM. Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation (2003) 13:429–448.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Bench-Capon T. Representation of case law as an argumentation framework. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Proceedings of Jurix 2002—Bench-Capon T, Daskalopoulu A, Winkels R, eds. (2002) IOS Press: Amsterdam. 103–112.
  8. Bench-Capon TJM. Try to see it my way: modelling persuasion in legal discourse. Artificial Intelligence Law (2003) 11:271–287.[CrossRef]
  9. Bench-Capon T, Doutre S, Dunne PE. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence (2007) 171:42–71.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  10. Bench-Capon T, Sartor G. Theory based explanation of case law. (2001) ACM Press: New York. 12–21. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on AI and Law.
  11. Berman D, Hafner C. Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. (1993) ACM. 50–59. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Articial Intelligence and Law.
  12. Berman DH, Hafner CD. Understanding precedents in a temporal context of evolving legal doctrine. (1995) 42–51. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law.
  13. Bratko I, Mozetic I, Lavrac N. KARDIO: A Study in Deep and Qualitative Knowledge for Expert Systems (1989) Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  14. Christie GC. The Notion of an IdealAudience in Legal Argument (2000) KluwerAcademic Publishers.
  15. Cruse A. Lexical Semantics (1986) Cambridge University Press.
  16. Dung PM. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence (1995) 77:321–358.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  17. Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM. Coherence in finite argument systems. Artificial Intelligence (2002) 141:187–203.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  18. Gordon T, Prakken H, Walton D. The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence (2007) 171:875–896.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  19. Henderson J, Bench-Capon T. Dynamic arguments in a case law domain. (2001) New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. 60–69. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law’01: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law.
  20. Kowalski A. Case-based reasoning and the deep structure approach to knowledge representation. (1991) NY, USA, ACM: New York. 21–30. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law’91: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Artificial intelligence and law.
  21. Levi EH. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (1962) Chicago, Illinios: Chicago University Press.
  22. Lindahl L. Deduction and justification in the law. the role of legal terms and concepts. Ratio Juris (2004) 17:182–202.[CrossRef]
  23. McDowell A. Legal fictions in Pierson v. Post. Michigan Law Review (2007) 105:735–777.[Web of Science]
  24. Modgil S. An abstract theory of argumentation that accommodates defeasible reasoning about preferences. In. In: ECSQARU—Mellouli K, ed. (2007) Springer. 648–659. vol. 4724 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
  25. Modgil S, Bench-Capon T. Integrating object and meta-level value-based argumentation. In Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument 2008, Toulouse, France. Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A, eds. (2008) IOS Press. 240–251. vol. 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications.
  26. Rissland EL, Friedman MT. Detecting change in legal concepts. (1995) 127–136. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law.
  27. Ross A. Tû-tû. Harvard Law Review (1957) 70:812–825.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  28. Wyner A, Bench-Capon T. Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning, In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2007. Lodder AR, Mommers L, eds. (2007) IOS Press: Amsterdam. 139–149.
  29. Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K. Three senses of "Argument". In: Computable Models of Legal Argument: Languages, Dialogues, Games, Ontologies (2008) LNAI 4884, Springer. 146–161.
  30. Wyner A, Bench-Capon T. Modelling judicial context in argumentation frameworks in Computational Models ofArgument - Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument 2008. In: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications—Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A, eds. (2008) IOS Press. 417–428.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in J Logic Computation:

The Logic of Acceptance: Grounding Institutions on Agents’ Attitudes
Emiliano Lorini, Dominique Longin, Benoit Gaudou, and Andreas Herzig
J Logic Computation 2009 10.1093/logcom/exn103. [Abstract]  

Editorial
Trevor Bench-Capon and Henry Prakken
J Logic Computation 2009 10.1093/logcom/exn105. [PDF]  




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in J Logic Computation
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wyner, A.
Right arrow Articles by Bench-Capon, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?