Trevor Bench-Capon
ABSTRACT
In this paper we discuss how recent developments in argumentation frameworks, most notably Extended Argumentation Frameworks, can inform the representation of a body of case law using abstract argumentation techniques. This builds on previous work which has first used abstract Argumentation Frameworks, and then Value based Argumentation Frameworks for this purpose.
Extended Argumentation Frameworks augment Argumentation Frameworks to not only allow arguments to be attacked, but also attacks to be attacked. This allows argumentation based reasoning about information normally assumed to be metalevel to the object level domain of argumentation, including argumentation over preferences, values and the audience based ranking of values promoted by arguments. The Extended Argumentation Frameworks can then be rewritten as standard Argumentation Frameworks, so that cases, and values and their rankings relevant to the cases, can be reasoned about using standard dialogue games for Argumentation Frameworks. In this way precedents can be represented as collections of arguments and dialogues using these arguments. Now, when confronted with a new case, these dialogues may be used to identify ways of deploying the arguments in the new case so as to reach a favourable position.
- V. Aleven. Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models. Phd thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1997. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- K. D. Ashley. Modeling Legal Argument. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990.Google Scholar
- K. Atkinson, T. Bench-Capon, and P. McBurney. Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 2005), pages 35--44. ACM Press, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Bench-Capon. Representation of case law as an argumentation framework. In A. Daskalopoulu T. Bench-Capon and R. Winkels, editors, Proceedings of JURIX 2002, pages 103--112, Amsterdman, The Netherlands, 2002. IOS Press.Google Scholar
- T. Bench-Capon and E. L. Rissland. Back to the future: dimensions revisited. In B. Verheij, A. Lodder, R. Loui, and A. Muntjewerff, editors, Proceedings of JURIX 2001, pages 41--52, Amsterdman, The Netherlands, 2001. IOS Press.Google Scholar
- T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13 3: 429--48, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Try to see it my way: Modelling persuasion in legal discourse. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11 (4): 271--87, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Katie Atkinson, and Alison Chorley. Persuasion and value in legal argument. J. Log. Comput., 15(6): 1075--1097, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, Sylvie Doutre, and Paul E. Dunne. Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell., 171(1): 42--71, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon and Giovanni Sartor. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif. Intell., 150(1--2): 97--143, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. H. Berman and C. D. Hafner. Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In Proc. of the 4th ICAIL, pages 50--59. ACM Press, 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karl Branting. A reduction-graph model of ratio decidendi. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law, pages 40--49, 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Karl Branting. Reasoning with portions of prcedents. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on AI and Law (ICAIL 1991), pages 145--154. ACM Press, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. G. Christie. The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. Kluwer Academic Press, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77: 321--357, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul E. Dunne and Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon. Coherence in finite argument systems. Artif. Intell., 141(1/2): 187--203, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul E. Dunne and Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon. Two party immediate response disputes: Properties and efficiency. Artif. Intell., 149(2): 221--250, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. F. Gordon and N. I. Karacapilidis. The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proc. of 6th International Conference on AI and Law, pages 10--18. ACM Press, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas F. Gordon and Douglas Walton. Pierson vs. post revisited - a reconstruction using the carneades argumentation framework. In Paul E. Dunne and Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon, editors, COMMA, volume 144 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 208--219. IOS Press, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Modgil. Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence (doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2009.02.001), 2009. In press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sanjay Modgil and Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon. Integrating object and meta-level value based argumentation. In Philippe Besnard, Sylvie Doutre, and Anthony Hunter, editors, COMMA, volume 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 240--251. IOS Press, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, USA, 1969.Google Scholar
- Henry Prakken. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowledge Eng. Review, 21(2): 163--188, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Wyner, T. Bench-Capon, and K. Atkinson. Arguments, values and baseballs: Representation of popov v. hayashi. In Proceedings of Jurix 2007, pages 151--160, Amsterdam, 2007. IOS Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Case law in extended argumentation frameworks
Recommendations
Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes
Legal reasoning typically requires a variety of argumentation schemes to be used together. A legal case may raise issues requiring argument from precedent cases, rules, policy goals, moral principles, jurisprudential doctrine, social values and ...
Comments