Abstract
In this paper I argue that to explain and resolve some kinds of disagreement we need to go beyond what logic alone can provide. In particular, following Perelman, I argue that we need to consider how arguments are ascribed different strengths by different audiences, according to how accepting these arguments promotes values favoured by the audience to which they are addressed. I show how we can extend the standard framework for modelling argumentation systems to allow different audiences to be represented. I also show how this formalism can explain how some disputes can be resolved while in others the parties can only agree to differ. I illustrate this by consideration of a legal example. Finally, I make some suggestions as to where these values come from, and how they can be used to explain differences across jurisdictions, and changes in views over time.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2001). Review of George C. Christie, The Notion of the Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9: 59–71.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2002). Representation of Case Law as an Argumentation Framework. In Bench-Capon et al (eds), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, 103–112. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003a). Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3): 429–448.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003b). Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values. Informal Logic. In Press.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Rissland, E. L. (2001). Back to the Future: Dimensions Revisited. In Proceedings of JURIX 2001. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. and Sartor, G. (2001). Theory Based Explanation of Case Law Domains. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on AI and Law, 12–21. ACM Press: New York.
Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. L. (1993). Representing Teleological Structure in Case Based Reasoning: The Missing Link. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Law, 50–59. ACM Press: New York.
Berman, D. H. and Hafner, C. L. (1995). Understanding Precedents in a Temporal Context of Evolving Doctrine. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, 42–51. ACM Press: New York.
Branting, K. L. (2003). An Agenda for Empirical Research in AI and Law. Papers from the ICAIL 2003 Workshop on Evaluation of Legal Reasoning and Problem-Solving Systems, Edinburgh.
Christie, G. C. (2000). The Notion of an Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
Dung, P. H. (1995). On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–357.
Dunne, P. E. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003). Two Party Immediate Response Disputes. Artificial Intelligence. In Press.
Hage, J. (1996). Formalizing Legal Coherence. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on AI and Law, 22–31. ACM Press: New York.
Moles, R. N. (1987). Definition and Rule in Legal Theory. Blackwell: Oxford.
Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame.
Perelman, Ch. (1980). Justice, Law and Argument. Reidel: Dordrecht.
Prakken, H. (2000). An Exercise in Formalising Teleological Case Based Reasoning. In Breuker, J., Leenes, R. and Winkels, R. (eds) 2000, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Jurix, 49–57. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4): 331–368.
Rissland, E. L. and Friedman, M. T. (1995). Detecting Change in Legal Concepts. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on AI and Law, 127–136. ACM Press: New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bench-Capon, T.J.M. Try to See it My Way: Modelling Persuasion in Legal Discourse. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, 271–287 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARTI.0000045997.45038.8f
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARTI.0000045997.45038.8f