Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game

  • Chapter
Judicial Applications of Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

This paper analyses legal reasoning with precedents in the setting of a formally defined dialogue game. After giving a legal-theoretical account of judicial reasoning with precedents, a formal method is proposed for representing precedents and it is discussed how such representations can be used in a formally defined dialectical protocol for dispute. The basic ideas are to represent cases as argument structures (including pro and con arguments, and the arguments for adjudicating their conflicts) and to define certain case-based reasoning moves as strategies for introducing information into a dispute. In particular, analogizing and distinguishing are conceived as elementary theory construction moves, which produce new information on the basis of an existing stock of cases. The approach also offers the possibility of using portions of precedents and of expressing criteria for determining the outcome of precedent-based disputes.

Much of the research reported in this article was done while the first author was employed at the Computer/Law Institute of the Faculty of Law, Free University Amsterdam, supported by a research fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and partly by Esprit WG 8319 ‘ModelAge’. The final version was written while the first author was employed at the Institute of Applied Information Technology of the GMD Bonn, Germany, supported by VIM (A Virtual Multicomputer), a project funded by the EC’s Human Capital and Mobility programme.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexy, R. (1989) A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V. and Ashley, K.D. (1996) ‘How different is different? Arguing about the significance of similarities and differences’, In Smith, I. and Faltings, B. (eds.), Advances in Case-Based Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, Springer Lecture Notes in AI1168, pp. 1–15. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V. and Ashley, K.D. (1997) ‘Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills’, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 170–179. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. (1990) Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cam bridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D.H. and Hafner, CD. (1991) ‘Incorporating procedural context into a model of case-based legal reasoning’, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 12–20. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, D.H. and Hafner, CD. (1995) ‘Understanding precedents in a temporal contex of evolving legal doctrine’, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 42–51. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., and Toni, F. (1997) ‘An abstract, argumentationtheoretic approach to default reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence 93, 63–101.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L.K. (1991) ‘Reasoning with portions of precedents’, Proceedings of the Third In ternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 145–154. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L.K. (1994) ‘A computational model of ratio decidendi’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L.K. and Porter, B.W. (1991) ‘Rules and precedents as complementary warrants’, Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-I99I).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewka, G. and Gordon, T.F. (1994) ‘How to buy a Porsche, an approach to defeasible decision making’, In Working Notes of the AAAI-94 Workshop on Computational Dialectics, pp. 28–38. Seattle, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R. and Harris, J.W. (1991) Precedent in English Law, 4th edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dung, P.M. (1995) ‘On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and person games’, Artificial Intelligence 11, 321–357.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R.M. (1977) Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R.M. (1985) A Matter of Principle. London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geffner, H. and Pearl, J. (1992) ‘Conditional entailment: bridging two approaches to default reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence 53, 209–244.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, L. (ed.) (1987) Precedent in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F. and Karacapilidis, N. (1997) The Zeno argumentation framework. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 10–18. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J.C. (1996) ‘A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match’, In (Prakken and Sartor, 1996c), 43–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J.C. (1997) Reasoning With Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Law and Philosophy Library.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J.C, Leenes, R., and Lodder, A.R. (1994) ‘Hard cases: a procedural approach’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 113–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klug, U. (1966) Juristische Logik. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R.P. (1987) ‘Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference’, Computational Intelligence 2, 100–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R.P. (1998) ‘Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning’, To appear in Computational Intelligence14, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R.P., Norman, J., Olson, J., and Merrill, A. (1993) ‘A design for reasoning with policies, precedents, and rationales’, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 202–211. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R.P. and Norman, J. (1995) ‘Rationales and argument moves’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 3, 159–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R.P and Norman, J. (1997) ‘Eliding the arguments of cases’, Submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. (1978) Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. (1987) ‘Why cases have rationes and what these are’, In (Goldstein, 1987), pp. 155–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L.T. (1995) An implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. Proceedings of the Fifth In-ternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 276–286. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L.T. (1997) ’some arguments about legal arguments’, Proceedings of the Sixth In-ternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 215–224. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, L.T. and Sridharan, N.S. (1981) ‘The representation of an evolving system of legal concepts: II. Prototypes and deformations’, Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 246–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J.S. [1859] (1974) On Liberty. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.L. (1987) ‘Defeasible reasoning’, Cognitive Science 11, 481–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (1993) Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Doctoral dissertation Free University Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (1995) ‘From logic to dialectics in legal argument’, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 165–174. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (1997) Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Law and Philosophy Library.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (1998) ‘Dialectical proof theory for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities (preliminary report)’, To appear in Proceedings of the Fourth Model Age Workshop on Formal Models of Agents, Springer Lecture Notes in AI. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996a) ‘A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priori-ties’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, Springer Lecture Notes in AI 1085, pp. 510–524. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996b) ‘A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning’, In (Prakken and Sartor, 1996c), pp. 175–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (eds.) (1996c) Logical Models of Legal Argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers (reprint of Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (1996)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997a) ‘Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities’, Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7: 25–75.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1997b) ‘Reasoning with precedents in a dialogue game’, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 1–9. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1975) Practical Reason and Norms. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1989) The Authority of the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. (1977) Dialectics: a Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E.L. and Ashley, K.D. (1987) ‘A case-based system for trade secrets law’, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 60–66. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. (1992) ‘Normative conflicts in legal reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 209–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. (1997) ‘Logic and argumentation in legal reasoning’. To appear in Current Legal Theory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D.B. and Rissland, E.L. (1991) ‘CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture’, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34, 839–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D.B. and Rissland, E.L. (1992) ‘Arguments and cases. An inevitable intertwining’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 3–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, R. (1997) Precedent in the United States. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taruffo, M. (1975) La Motivazione della Sentenza Civile(Justification in civil judgement). Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twining, W., and Miers, D. (1991) How to do Things with Rules. London: Butterworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, B. (1996) Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Doctoral dissertation University of Maastricht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. (1996) ‘Representation of formal dispute with a standing order’, Research Report MATRIX, University ofLimburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. (1997) ‘Abstract argumentation systems’, Artificial Intelligence 90, 225–279.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (1982) Learning the Law. London: Stevens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wroblewski, J. [1969] (1983) ‘Justification of Legal Decisions’, In Wroblewski, J. (ed.), Meaning and Truth in Judicial Decision, pp. 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsinski: A-Thieto Oy. (First published in Logique et Analyse 3 (1969)).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Henry Prakken

  2. Faculty of Law, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland

    Giovanni Sartor

Authors
  1. Henry Prakken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giovanni Sartor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

    Giovanni Sartor

  2. University of Wyoming, USA

    Karl Branting

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Prakken, H., Sartor, G. (1998). Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game. In: Sartor, G., Branting, K. (eds) Judicial Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5136-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9010-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation