Abstract
In this paper I investigate the similarities betweenthe dialectical procedure in the pragma-dialecticaltheory and dialectical procedures in AI and Law. I dothis by focusing on one specific type of reasoning inlaw: analogy argumentation. I will argue that analogyargumentation is not only a heuristic forfinding new premises, but also a part of thejustification of legal decisions. The relevantcriteria for the evaluation of analogy argumentationare not to be found at the logical level of inference,but at the procedural level of the discussion. I willproceed as follows. I start with an outline ofPrakken's theory of argumentation frameworks andprocedural models. Then, I will discuss Peczenik'sanalysis of analogy argumentation and try to combineit with the descriptive-normative research ofMacCormick and Summers. Finally, I propose asystematization of the criteria for the evaluation ofanalogy argumentation within the framework of apragma-dialectical notion of an argumentation scheme.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aarnio, A. 1988. The Rational as Reasonable.A Treatise on Legal Justification. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Aarnio, A., Alexy, R. & Peczenik, A. 1981. The Foundation of Legal Reasoning. Rechtstheorie, Band 21, Nr. 2, pp. 133–158, nr. 3 pp. 257–279, nr. 4, pp. 423–448.
Alexy, R. 1983. Theorie der Juristischen Argumentation.Die Theorie des Rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der Juristischen Begründung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. 1982. Regels voor Redelijke Discussies. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Proefschrift UvA.
Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Gordon, T.F. 1995. The Pleadings Game.An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Hage, J.C., Leenes, R. & Lodder, A.R. 1994. ‘Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach', Artificial Intelligence and Law 2: 113–166.
Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klug, U. 1982. Juristische Logik. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer-Verlag.
MacCormick, N. & Summers, R.S. (eds.) 1991. Interpreting Statues. A Comparative Study. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Peczenik, A. 1989. On Law and Reason. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.
Prakken, H. 1995. 'From Logic to Dialectics in Legal Argument', Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 165–174. College Park, MD: ACM Press.
Prakken, H. & Sartor G. 1996. ‘A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning', Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.
Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rissland, E.L. & Ashley, K.D. 1987. ‘A Case-Based System for Trade Secrets Law’. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 60–66. New York: ACM Press.
Rissland, E.L. & Ashley, K.D. 1989. 'HYPO: A Precedent-Based Legal Reasoner', In G.P.V. Vandenberghe (ed.), Advanced Topics in Law and Information Technology. Deventer: Kluwer.
Tammelo, I. 1969. Outlines of Modern Legal Logic. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Wróblewski, J. 1974. ‘Legal Syllogism and Rationality of Judicial Decision’, Rechtstheorie 5: 33–46.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kloosterhuis, H. Analogy argumentation in law: A dialectical perspective. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8, 173–187 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008385531494
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008385531494