Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing Alternatives in the law*

Legal Applications of Qualitative Comparative Reasoning

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues the thesis that a particular style of reasoning, qualitative comparative reasoning (QCR), plays a role in at least three areas of legal reasoning that are central in AI and law research, namely legal theory construction, case-based reasoning in the form of case comparison, and legal proof. The paper gives an informal exposition of one particular way to deal with QCR, based on the author’s previous work on reason-based logic (RBL). Then it contains a substantially adapted formalisation of RBL, to make RBL suitable for dealing with QCR. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of related work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • C. E. Alchourrón E. Bulygin (1971) Normative Systems Springer Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case-Based Argumentation through a Model and Examples. PhD-thesis Pittsburgh.

  • Alexy, R. (1979). Zum Begriff des Rechtprinzips, Rechtstheorie, Beiheft 1, pp. 59–87.

  • R. Alexy (1996) Theorie der Grundrechten, 3e Auflage Suhrkamp Frankfurt a/M

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Alexy (2000) ArticleTitleOn the Structure of Legal Principles Ratio Juris 13 IssueID3 294–304 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-9337.00157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Alexy (2003) ArticleTitleOn Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural Comparison Ratio Juris 16 IssueID3 433–449

    Google Scholar 

  • K. D. Ashley (1990) Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals MIT-Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • K. D. Ashley (1991) ArticleTitleReasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals in HYPO International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34 753–796 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0020-7373(91)90011-U

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. D. Ashley (1992) ArticleTitleCase-Based Reasoning and its implications for Legal Expert Systems Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 IssueID2–3 113–208

    Google Scholar 

  • T. J. M. Bench-Capon (2000) ArticleTitleThe Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal Argument Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 94–97

    Google Scholar 

  • T. J. M. Bench-Capon E. L. Rissland (2001) Back to the Future: Dimensions Revisited H. B. Verheij (Eds) et al. Proceedings Jurix 2001 IOS Press Amsterdam 41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • T. J. M. Bench-Capon G. Sartor (2000) Using Values and Theories to Resolve Disagreement in Law J. Breuker (Eds) et al. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Jurix Conference IOS Press Amsterdam 73–84

    Google Scholar 

  • T. J. M. Bench-Capon G. Sartor (2003) ArticleTitleA Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values Artificial Intelligence 150 97–143 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00108-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. H. Berman C. Hafner (1993) Representing Teleological Structure in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link ACM New York 50–59

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Bex H. Prakken C. Reed D. Walton (2003) ArticleTitleTowards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 IssueID2–3 125–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewka, G. and Gordon, T. F. (1994). How to Buy a Porsche, an Approach to Defeasible Decision Making. In Working Notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics Seattle, Washington, pp. 28–38.

  • R. Dworkin (1978) Taking Rights Seriously EditionNumber2 Duckworth London

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Dworkin (1985) A Matter of Principle Clarendon Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Dworkin (1986) Laws Empire Fontana London

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Freeman A. M. Farley (1996) ArticleTitleA Model of Argumentation and Its Application to Legal Reasoning Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 IssueID3–4 163–197

    Google Scholar 

  • T. F. Gordon N. Karacapilidis (1997) The Zeno Argumentation Framework ACM New York 10–18

    Google Scholar 

  • J. C. Hage (1996) ArticleTitleA Model of Legal Reasoning and a Logic to Match Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 IssueID3–4 199–273

    Google Scholar 

  • J. C. Hage (1997) Reasoning with Rules Kluwer Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • J. C. Hage (2000) Goal-based Theory Evaluation J. Breuker (Eds) et al. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Jurix Conference IOS Press Amsterdam 59–72

    Google Scholar 

  • J. C. Hage (2001) Formalizing Legal Coherence ACM New York 22–31

    Google Scholar 

  • J. C. Hage G. Sartor (2003) ArticleTitleLegal Theory Construction Associations 7 IssueID3 171–184

    Google Scholar 

  • J. C. Hage (2005) Studies in Legal Logic Springer Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • R. M. Hare (1963) Freedom and Reason Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • R. L. Keeney H. Raiffa (1993) Decision with Multiple Objectives, Preferences and Value Tradeoffs Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • L. T. McCarty (1995) An Implementation of Eisner v. Macomber ACM New York 276–286

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Prakken G. Sartor (1998) ArticleTitleModelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game Artificial Intelligence and Law 6 IssueID2–4 231–287

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Prakken (2000) An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case Based Reasoning J. Breuker (Eds) et al. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Jurix Conference IOS Press Amsterdam 49–57

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Prakken (2002) ArticleTitleAn exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 113–133 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1019536206548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H. Prakken C. Reed D. Walton (2003) Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations in Reasoning about Evidence ACM Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Prakken (2004) ArticleTitleAnalyzing Reasoning about Evidence With Formal Models of Argumentation Law, Probability and Risk 3 33–50 Occurrence Handle10.1093/lpr/3.1.33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, B. (2003). Case-Based Reasoning in the Law. A Formal Theory of Reasoning by Case Comparison. PhD-thesis, Maastricht.

  • G. Sartor (2002) ArticleTitleTeleological Arguments and Theory-Based Dialectics Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 95–112 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1019589831118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillers P. and Green E.D. (eds) Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence: The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism. Kluwer, Dordrecht

  • W. L. Twining (1985) Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore Stanford University Press Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • W. L. Twining (1991) Rethinking Evidence Northwestern University Press Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  • H. B. Verheij (2003) ArticleTitleDialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 IssueID2–3 167–195

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Metajuridica, University of Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Jaap Hage

Authors
  1. Jaap Hage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaap Hage.

Additional information

*This paper is based on the chapters 3 and 4 of Hage 2005.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hage, J. Comparing Alternatives in the law*. Artif Intell Law 12, 181–225 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-005-6926-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-005-6926-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation