Towards a dynamic metalogic implementation of legal argumentation

Human argumentation in general and legal dispute in particular can be seen as highly dynamic and non-monotonic to its nature. To us this suggests that logical analysis of legal argumentation needs to be conducted in a dynamical and flexible setting in which the interaction is influenced by the parties' previous arguments. To express such approximations of legal reasoning as computational formalizations of argument, applications require dealing with knowledge representations, non-monotonic logics and a game-model able to capture the interaction as a debate between two or more disputing parties. In this paper we present some intuitions regarding the features of a full implementation and accompanying software for defeasible adversarial legal argumentation.

[1]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  Logical models of argument , 2000, CSUR.

[2]  Jørgen Fischer Nilsson,et al.  A Common Framework for Board Games and Argumentation Games , 2008, EJC.

[3]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  A Logic for Default Reasoning , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Jørgen Fischer Nilsson,et al.  Legal rules and argumentation in a metalogic framework , 2007, JURIX.

[5]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic , 2004, J. Log. Comput..

[6]  Eriksson Lundström,et al.  On the Formal Modeling of Games of Language and Adversarial Argumentation : A Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence Approach , 2009 .

[7]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming: Volume 3: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning , 1994 .

[8]  J. Kemp,et al.  The Concept of Law. , 1962 .

[9]  Thomas F. Gordon,et al.  Pleadings game - an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice , 1995 .

[10]  Michael J. Maher,et al.  A Flexible Framework for Defeasible Logics , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[11]  Donald Nute,et al.  Ambiguity Propagating Defeasible Logic and the Well-Founded Semantics , 2006, JELIA.

[12]  Gerhard Brewka,et al.  A Reconstruction of Rescher' s Theory of Formal Disputation Based on Default Logic , 1994, ECAI.

[13]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Formalising arguments about the burden of persuasion , 2007, ICAIL.

[14]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game , 1998 .

[15]  Francesca Toni,et al.  An Assumption-Based Framework for Non-Monotonic Reasoning , 1993, LPNMR.

[16]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis , 1997 .