Abstract
Legal argumentation can be modeled using logic, but in this chapter it is claimed that logic alone does not suffice. A model should also take the rhetoric nature of legal argumentation into account. DiaLaw is such a model: a formal, procedural model in which the logical and rhetorical aspects of argumentation are combined.
The core of this chapter consists of a description of the basic concepts of DiaLaw and an extensive account of why rhetorical, non-logical elements of legal argumentation are essential.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexy, R.: 1989,A Theory of Legal Argumentation, Oxford, Clarendon press.
Ashley, K. D.: 1990,Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press.
Barth, E. M. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1982,From Axiom to Dialogue, Berlin, New York, Walter de Gruyter.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M.: 1998, ‘Specification and Implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game’, in: J. C. Hage et al. (eds.),Legal Knowledge Based Systems: JURIX 1998, Nijmegen, GNI, pp. 5–19.
Berman, D. H. and C. D. Hafner: 1987, ‘Indeterminacy: A Challenge to Logic-based Models of Legal Reasoning’,Yearbook of Law, Computers and Technology 3, 1–35.
Blair, J. A.: 2001, ‘Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development’,Argumentation 15, 365–379.
Branting, L. K.: 1991,Integrating Rules and Precedents for Classification: Automating Legal Analysis, Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Dung, P. M.: 1995, ‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Llogic Programming andn-person Games’,Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357.
Freeman, K. and A. M. Farley: 1996, ‘A Model of Argumentation and Its Application to Legal Reasoning’,Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 163–197.
Gordon, T. F.: 1995,The Pleadings Game – An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Govier, T.: 1987,Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Dordrecht, Foris Publications.
Hage, J. C.: 1997,Reasoning with Rules, An Essay on Legal Reasoning and its Underlying Logic, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hage, J. C., G. P. J. Span and A. R. Lodder: 1992, ‘A Dialogical Model of Legal Reasoning’, in C. A. F. M. Grütters et al. (eds.),Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Information Technology and Law, JURIX '92, Lelystad, Koninklijke Vermande.
Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, in Richard Clay (ed.),Fallacies, Bungay, Suffolk, The Chaucer Press Ltd.
Hare, R. M.: 1963,Freedom and Reason, Oxford University Press.
Jakobovits, H. and D. Vermeir: 1999, ‘Dialectic Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks’,Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York, ACM, pp. 53–62.
Leith: 1986, ‘Fundamental Errors in Legal Logic Programming’,The Computer Journal 29(6).
Lodder, A. R and A. Herczog: 1995, ‘DiaLaw – A Dialogical Framework for Modeling Legal Reasoning’,Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York, ACM, pp. 146–155.
Lodder, A. R. and P. E. M. Huygen: 2001, ‘Eadr A Simple Tool to Structure the Information Exchange between Parties in Online Alternative Dispute Resolution’, in Bart Verheij, Arno R. Lodder, Ronald P. Loui and Antoinette J. Muntjewerff (eds.),Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2001: The Fourteenth Annual Conference, Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp. 117–129.
Lodder, A. R. and G. A. W. Vreeswijk: 2004, ‘Gearbi: Proposal for an Online Arbitration Service under the ICC Rules of Arbitration, and a Preliminary Implementation’,ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Special Supplement.
Lodder, A. R. and J. Zeleznikow: 2005, ‘Proposal for an Online Dispute Resolution Environment: Dialogue Tools and Negotiation Systems in a Three Step Model’,Harvard Negotiation Law Review Spring 2005, to appear.
Lodder, A. R.: 1999,DiaLaw – On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lorenz, K.: 1961,Arithmetik und Logik als Spiele, Dissertation, Kiel.
Loui, R. P. and J. Norman: 1995, ‘Rationales and Argument Moves’,Artificial Intelligence and Law 3, 159–189.
Loui, R. P., J. Norman, J. Olson and A. Merill: 1993, ‘A Design for Reasoning with Policies, Precedents and Rationales’,Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York, ACM, pp. 202–211.
MacKenzie, J. D.: 1979, ‘Question-Begging in Non-cumulative Systems’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 117–133.
Moles, R. N.: 1992, ‘Expert Systems – The Need for Theory’, in C. A. F. M. Grütters et al. (eds.),Legal Knowledge Based Systems: Information Technology and Law, JURIX '92, Leystad, Koninklijke Vermande.
Nitta, K., S. Wong and Y. Ohtake: 1993, ‘A Computational Model for Trial Reasoning’,Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York, ACM, pp. 20–29.
Nutting, K.: 2002, ‘Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law’,Argumentation 16, 109–131.
Peczenik, A.: 1989,On Law and Reason, Dorcrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Peczenik, A.: 1996, ‘Jumps and Logic in the Law’,Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 297–329.
Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1971,The New Rhetoric, A Treatise on Argumention, London, University of Notre Dame Press.
Prakken, H. and G. Sartor: 1996, ‘A Dialectical Model of Assessing in Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 331–368.
Prakken, H.: 1997, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rawls, J.: 1972, A Theory of Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Rescher, N.: 1977, Dialectics, A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, Albany, State University of New York Press.
Sartor, G.: 1994, ‘A Formal Model of Legal Argumentation’, Ratio Iuris 7(2), 177–211.
Searle, J. R.: 1969, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press.
Skalak, D. B. and E. L. Rissland: 1992, ‘Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 3–45.
Soeteman, A.: 2000, ‘Over de moraal van de juridische argumentatie’, in: E. T. Feteris et al. (eds.), Met recht en redden, Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri, pp. 15–21.
Stevenson, C. L.: 1944, Ethics and Language, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, The 1979 reprint of the 1944 edn.
Tindale, C. W.: 1999, Acts of Arguing, A Rhetorical Model of Argument, Albany, New York, State University of New York Press.
Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H. and R. Grootendorst: 1982, Regels voor redelijke discussies, Een bijdrage tot de theoretische analyse van argumentatie tot oplossing van geschillen, Dissertation, Foris, Dordrecht.
Verheij, B.: 1996, Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat, Dissertation, Universiteit Maastricht.
Verheij, B.: 1999, ‘Logic, Context and Valid Inference, Or: Can there be a Logic of Law?’, in H. J. van den Herik et al. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems, JURIX 1999, The Twelfth Conference, Nijmegen, GNI, pp. 109–121.
Verheij, B., J. Hage and A. R. Lodder: 1997, ‘Logical Tools for Legal Argument: a Practical Assessment in the Domain of Tort’, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York, ACM, pp. 243–249.
Vreeswijk, G. A. W.: 1993, Studies in Defeasible Argumentation, Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Walton D. N. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue, Albany, State University of New York Press.
Walton, D.: 1996, Argument Structure A Pragmatic Theory, University of Toronto Press.
Wellman, C.: 1971, Challenge and Response: Justification in Ethics, Southern Illinois University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lodder, A.R. (2009). Law, Logic, Rhetoric: A Procedural Model of Legal Argumentation. In: Rahman, S., Symons, J., Gabbay, D.M., Bendegem, J.P.v. (eds) Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Logic, Epistemology, And The Unity Of Science, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2808-3_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2808-3_26
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2486-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2808-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive