Marc Lauritsen
ABSTRACT
In the course of legal reasoning -- whether for purposes of deciding an issue, justifying a decision, predicting how an issue will be decided, or arguing for how it should be decided -- one often is required to reach (and assert) conclusions based on a balance of reasons that is not straightforwardly reducible to the application of rules. Recent AI & Law work has modeled reason-balancing, both within and across cases, with set-theoretic and rule- or value-ordering approaches. This article explores how modeling it in 'choiceboxing' terms may yield new questions, insights, and tools.
- Arrow, K. Social Choice and Individual Values. (2nd ed., 1963)Google Scholar
- Ashley, K. and Brüninghaus, S. Computer Models for legal Prediction. 46 Jurimetrics 309 (2005-2006)Google Scholar
- Ashley, K. and Brüninghaus, S. Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17: 125--165 (2009) Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bench-Capon, T. and Prakken, H. Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(2): 153--174 (2010) Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brams, S. Mathematics and Democracy (2008)Google Scholar
- Chorley, A. and Bench-Capon, T. AGATHA: Using heuristic search to automate the construction of case law theories. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13(1): 9--51 (2005) Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chorley, A. and Bench-Capon, T. An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13(3-4): 323--371 (2005) Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dawes, R. The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models in Decision Making. 34 American Psychologist 571--582 (1979)Google Scholar
- Emerson, P. Consensus voting and party funding: a web-based experiment. European Political Science 9: 83--101 (2010)Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grabmair, M. and Ashley, K. A Survey of Uncertainties and their Consequences in Probabilistic Legal Argumentation. In Zenker, F., ed., Bayesian Argumentation (2012)Google Scholar
- Hage, J. Monological Reason-based Logic: A Low Level Integration of Rule-based Reasoning and Case-based Reasoning. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30--39 (1993) Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hoeflich, M. H. Law and Geometry: Legal Science from Leibniz to Langdell. 30 Am. J. Legal Hist. 95 (1986)Google Scholar
- Horty, J. and Bench-Capon, T. A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20: 181--214 (2012)Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jarke, M., Jelassi, M, and Shakun, M. Mediator: Towards a negotiation support system. European Journal of Operational Research 31: 314--334 (1987)Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kennedy, D. Freedom and Constraint in Adjudication: A Critical Phenomenology. 36 J. Leg. Ed. 518 (1986)Google Scholar
- Lauritsen, M. Lawyer's Guide To Working Smarter With Knowledge Tools (American Bar Association, 2010)Google Scholar
- Lauritsen, M. Intelligent Tools for Managing Legal Choices. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 106--110 (2011) Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lauritsen, M. 'Boxing' Choices for Better Dispute Resolution. ABA Dispute Resolution Section 2012 Spring Conference, Washington DC. (Paper available from author.)Google Scholar
- McFadden, P. The Balancing Test. 29 B.C.L. Rev. 585 (1988)Google Scholar
- Morge, M. Collective decision-making process to compose divergent interests and perspectives. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13: 79--92 (2006) Google ScholarDigital Library
- Saari, D. Basic Geometry of Voting (1995)Google Scholar
- Sieckmann, J. Why non-monotonic logic is inadequate to represent balancing arguments. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 211--219 (2003) Google ScholarDigital Library
- On balance
Recommendations
On balance
In the course of legal reasoning--whether for purposes of deciding an issue, justifying a decision, predicting how an issue will be decided, or arguing for how it should be decided--one often is required to reach (and assert) conclusions based on a ...
Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances
Organizational research advocates that firms balance exploration and exploitation, yet it acknowledges inherent challenges in reconciling these opposing activities. To overcome these challenges, such research suggests that firms establish organizational ...
Comments