Generalization in Legal Argumentation

Argumentation in Legal Reasoning

A popular view of what Artificial Intelligence can do for lawyers is that it can do no more than deduce the consequences from a precisely stated set of facts and legal rules. This immediately makes many lawyers sceptical about the usefulness of such systems: this mechanical approach seems to leave out most of what is important in legal reasoning. A case does not appear as a set of facts, but ra...

Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning of Legal Argumentation

In this paper we review the role that collaborative learning can play in law. In particular we see it as a constructive way of acquiring information not only about the domain, but also the processes that operate in the domain, and how to play the roles that arise in the domain. We have previously described a stand-alone dialogue tool to support such learning. In this paper we describe how the t...

Models for the Analysis of Legal Argumentation

Argumentation Corner A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+

In this article we offer a formal account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are formalized as defeasible rules of inference within the ASPIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and th...

Computing Argumentation for Decision Making in Legal Disputes

In this paper, we present a decision support system for lawyer. This system is built upon an argumentation framework for decision making. A logic language is used as a concrete data structure for holding the statements like knowledge, goals, and decisions. Different priorities are attached to these items corresponding to the uncertainty of the knowledge about the circumstances, the lawyer’s pre...