Skip to main content
Log in

Analogy argumentation in law: A dialectical perspective

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

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarnio, A. 1988. The Rational as Reasonable.A Treatise on Legal Justification. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. 1982. Regels voor Redelijke Discussies. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Proefschrift UvA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F. 1995. The Pleadings Game.An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J.C., Leenes, R. & Lodder, A.R. 1994. ‘Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach', Artificial Intelligence and Law 2: 113–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klug, U. 1982. Juristische Logik. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. & Summers, R.S. (eds.) 1991. Interpreting Statues. A Comparative Study. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik, A. 1989. On Law and Reason. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. & Sartor G. 1996. ‘A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning', Artificial Intelligence and Law 4: 331–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tammelo, I. 1969. Outlines of Modern Legal Logic. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wróblewski, J. 1974. ‘Legal Syllogism and Rationality of Judicial Decision’, Rechtstheorie 5: 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008385531494

Keywords

Navigation