Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation in AI and Law: Editors' Introduction

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

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.

References

  • Aleven, V. (1997). Teaching Case Based Argumentation Through an Example and Models. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Pittsburgh.

  • Ashley, K. (1990). Modelling Legal Argument. Bradford Books, MIT Press.

  • Bench-Capon T., Coenen F., Orton P. (1993) Argument Based Explanation of the British Nationality Act as a Logic Program. Computers, Law and AI 2(1):53–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T., Sartor G. (2003) A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence 150: 97–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T., Sergot M. (1989). Towards a Rule Based Representation of Open Texture in Law. In C. Walter (ed.), Computing Power and Legal Reasoning, 39–60. Greenwood Press

  • Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1984). Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game. In Proceedings JURIX 98. Nijmegen, 5–20, GNI

  • Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2002) The Missing Link Revisited: The Role of Teleology in Representing Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10(2–3): 79–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2003) Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3):429-448

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D. and Hafner, C. (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case-based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law. New York, 50–59, ACM Press.

  • Dung P. M. (1995) On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reason, Logic Programming, and N-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Farley, A. and Freeman, K. (1995) Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law. New York, 156–164, ACM Press

  • Gordon T. (1995) The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, K., Bench-Capon, T. and McBurney, P. (2003). Towards a Computational Account of Persuasion in Law. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of AI and Law. New York, 22–31, ACM Press.

  • Hage J. (1996). A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 199–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodder, A. R. (1998). Dialaw: On legal Justification and Dialogue Games. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maastricht.

  • Lutomski, L. (1989). The Design of an Attorney's Statistical Consultant. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on AI and Law. New York, 224–233, ACM Press.

  • Marshall C. (1989) Representing the Structure of A Legal Argument. ACM Press, New York, pp. 121–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (1993). A Logical Framework for Modelling Legal Argument. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of AI and Law. New York, 1–10, ACM Press.

  • Prakken H. (2002a) An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 113–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (2002b). Incomplete Arguments in Legal Discourse: A Case Study. In Bench-Capon, T., Daskalopulu, A. and Winkels, R. (eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference. 93–102, IOS Press.

  • Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D. (2003). Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations in Reasoning about Evidence. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on AI and Law. New York, 32–41, ACM Press.

  • Prakken, H., C. Reed, and D. Walton: 2005, Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on AI and Law. New York, pp. 115–124, ACM Press

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4.

  • Sartor G. (2002) Teleological Arguments and Theory-based Dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10: 95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sergot M., Sadri F., Kowalski R., Kriwaczek F., Hammond P., Cory H. (1986) The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Comm. of the ACM 29(5): 370–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. and Rissland. E. (1992). Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1.

  • Toulmin, S. (1959). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.

  • Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning.

  • Zeleznikow, J. and Stranieri, A. (1995). The Split-Up system. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law. New York, 185–195, ACM Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZF, UK

    Trevor J.M. Bench-Capon & Paul E. Dunne

Authors
  1. Trevor J.M. Bench-Capon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul E. Dunne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trevor J.M. Bench-Capon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bench-Capon, T.J., Dunne, P.E. Argumentation in AI and Law: Editors' Introduction. Artif Intell Law 13, 1–8 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9007-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-006-9007-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation