iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://unpaywall.org/10.1023/A:1008318016098
Henry Prakken (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law | Artificial Intelligence and Law Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Henry Prakken (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

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

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Bondarenko, A., Toni, F. & Kowalski, R. A. (1993). An assumption-based framework for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Pereira, L. M. & Nerode, A. (eds.), Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 171–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dung, Phan Minh (1993). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In Ruzena Bajcsy (ed.), IJCAI-93. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo CA, pp. 852–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dung, Phan Minh (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence77, 321–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, Frans H. van, Grootendorst, Rob & Kruiger, Tjark (1981). Argumentatietheorie. Uitgeverij Het Spectrum, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, Frans H. van, Grootendorst, Rob & Kruiger, Tjark (1987). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. A Critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies. Foris Publications, Dordrecht. Translation of van Eemeren et al. (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Kathleen & Farley, Arthur M. (1996). A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artficial Intelligence and Law4, 163–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Thomas F. (1995). The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haack, Susan (1978). Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, Jaap C. (1996). A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match. Artificial Intelligence and Law4, 199–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, Jaap C. (1997). Reasoning with Rules. An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodder, Arno R. (1998). DiaLaw - on Legal Justification and Dialog Games. Dissertation, Universiteit Maastricht.

  • Lodder, Arno R. & Herczog, Aimé e (1995). DiaLaw. A dialogical framework for modeling legal reasoning. The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, pp. 146–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, Ronald P. (1995). Book Review. Foucault, Derrida, Women's Speaking Justified, and Modelling Legal Argument. Artificial Intelligence and Law3, 143–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, Ronald P. & Norman, Jeff (1995). Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law3, 159–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, John L. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science11, 481–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, Henry & Sartor, Giovanni (1996). A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law4, 331–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, Henry (1993). Logical Tools forModelling Legal Argument. Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troelstra, A. S. & Dalen, D. van (1988). Constructivism in Mathematics: An Introduction. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

  • Verheij, Bart (1996). Rules, Reasons, Arguments. Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat. Dissertation, Universiteit Maastricht. (See http://www.metajur.unimaas.nl/bart/proefschrift/.)

  • Verheij, Bart, Hage, Jaap C. & Herik, H. Jaap van den (1998). An integrated view on rules and principles. Artificial lntelligence and Law6(1), 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, Gerard A. W. (1993). Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. Dissertation. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, Gerard A. W. (1997). Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence90, 225–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshino, Hajime (1995). The systematization of legal meta-inference. The Fifth lnternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, pp. 266–275.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Metajuridica, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Bart Verheij

Authors
  1. Bart Verheij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verheij, B. Henry Prakken (1997). Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8, 35–65 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008318016098

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008318016098

Search

Navigation