Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence and Law 1/2016

01.03.2016

An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation

verfasst von: Douglas Walton, Giovanni Sartor, Fabrizio Macagno

Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence and Law | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of contested statutory interpretation in law. A simplified version of the Carneades Argumentation System is applied in a case analysis showing how the procedure works. A logical model for statutory interpretation is finally presented, covering pro-tanto and all-things-considered interpretive conclusions.
Vorheriger Artikel A methodology for designing systems to reason with legal cases using Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
For previous work on the project see Macagno et al. (2012), Sartor et al. (2014), Walton et al. (2014).
 
Literatur
Alexy R, Dreier R (1991) Statutory interpretation in the Federal Republic of Germany. In: MacCormick N, Summers R (eds) Interpreting statutes. A comparative study. Aldershot, Dartmouth
Araszkiewicz M (2013) Towards systematic research on statutory interpretation in AI and Law. In: Hoekstra R (ed) Proceedings of JURIX 2014: the twenty-seventh annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 15–24
Atlas JD (2005) Logic, meaning, and conversation: semantical underdeterminacy, implicature, and their interface. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Atlas JD, Levinson S (1981) It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In: Cole P (ed) Radical pragmatics. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–62
Carston R (2002) Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Blackwell, OxfordCrossRef
Carston R (2013) Legal texts and canons of construction: a view from current pragmatic theory. In: Freeman M, Smith F (eds) Law and language: current legal issues, vol 15. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 8–33CrossRef
Cross R (2005) Statutory interpretation (Bell J, Engle G, eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dascal M (2003) Interpretation and understanding. John Benjamins, AmsterdamCrossRef
Dascal M, Wróblewski J (1988) Transparency and doubt: understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in law. Law Philos 7(2):203–224CrossRef
Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Gizbert-Studnicki T (1990) The burden of argumentation in legal disputes. Ratio Juris 3(1):118–129CrossRef
Gordon T (2010) An overview of the Carneades argumentation support system. In: Reed C, Tindale CW (eds) Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument. College Publications, London, pp 145–156
Gordon T, Walton D (2009a) Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: Hafner CD (ed) Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 137–146
Gordon T, Walton D (2009b) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–258CrossRef
Gordon T, Walton D (2011) A formal model of legal proof standards and burdens. In: van Eemeren F, Garssen B, Blair A, Mitchell G (eds) 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA 2010). Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp 644–655
Hage J (1996) A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):199–273CrossRef
Horn L (1995) Vehicles of meaning: unconventional semantics and unbearable interpretation. Wash Univ Law Q 73:1145–1152
Levinson S (2000) Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge
Macagno F (2015) A means-end classification of argumentation schemes. In: van Eemeren F, Garssen B (eds) Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory. Springer, Cham, pp 183–201
Macagno F, Walton D (2014) Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRef
Macagno F, Sartor G, Walton D (2012) Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation. In: Šavelka J, Araszkiewicz M, Myška M, Smejkalová T, Škop M (eds) ARGUMENTATION 2012. International conference on alternative methods of argumentation in law. Masarykova univerzita, Brno, pp 63–75
MacCormick N (2005) Rhetoric and the rule of law: a theory of legal reasoning. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
MacCormick N, Summers R (eds) (1991) Interpreting statutes: a comparative study. Dartmouth, Aldershot
Pollock J (1995) Cognitive carpentry. MIT Press, Cambridge
Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4:331–368CrossRef
Rotolo A, Governatori G, Sartor G (2015) Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation: two options for modelling interpretive arguments. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, pp 99–108CrossRef
Sartor G, Walton D, Macagno F, Rotolo A (2014) Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation: A logical analysis. In: Hoekstra R (ed) Legal knowledge and information systems: JURIX 2014: the twenty-seventh annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 11–20
Soames S (2008) Philosophical essays, volume 1: Natural language: what it means and how we use it. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRef
Sperber D, Wilson D (1986) Relevance: communication and cognition. Blackwell, Oxford
Tarello G (1980) L’interpretazione della legge. Giuffrè, Milano
Verheij B (2008) About the logical relations between cases and rules. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscornia D (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2008: the twenty-first annual conference. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 21–32
Walton D (2004) Abductive reasoning. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa
Walton D (2013) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah
Walton D (2015) Goal-based reasoning for argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefMATH
Walton D, Gordon T (2005) Critical questions in computational models of legal argument. In: Dunne P, Bench-Capon T (eds) Argumentation in artificial intelligence and law, IAAIL workshop series. Wolf Legal, Nijmegen, pp 103–111
Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefMATH
Walton D, Macagno F, Sartor G (2014) Interpretative argumentation schemes. JURIX-2014. IOS, pp 21–22
Metadaten
Titel
An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation
verfasst von
Douglas Walton
Giovanni Sartor
Fabrizio Macagno
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2016
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Artificial Intelligence and Law / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0924-8463
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8382
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9179-0

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise