Dialogical Reason Based Logic for Modeling Legal Reasoning

Abstract A view of legal rules as fixed entities is erroneous. In legal disputes the debate is often about the rules themselves. Traditional logic‐based approaches to legal expert systems run up against difficulties when dealing with conflicts about the rules themselves. It is worthwhile to adopt a different view on the nature of legal rules. An alternative can be found in dialogical reason‐based logic (RBL). In this logic a dispute is seen as a dialogue between two parties in which reasons for or against some thesis are put forward. In RBL both rules and facts can be the objects of disputes.