Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 307–314 | Cite as

Eveline T. Feteris: Fundamentals of legal argumentation

Springer, 2017, 2nd edn, pp. 363
  • T. J. M. Bench-Capon
Book review
  • 179 Downloads

Argumentation has been at the heart of the AI and Law enterprise since its very beginning. One of the earliest AI and Law programs, Taxman (McCarty 1976), attempted to model the majority and minority arguments in a leading case, Eisner v Macomber, computationally. Since then many AI and Law researchers have explored legal argumentation, using both formal techniques (see Prakken and Sartor (2015) for a survey) and more empirical techniques (see Bench-Capon 2017). Equally long standing is the investigation of legal argumentation from the perspective of argumentation theory1, in particular that of the pragma-dialectics group at the University of Amsterdam, from which this book originates. Eveline Feteris has been a long standing member (since 1986) of this group, and has published extensively on legal argumentation including (Feteris 1994, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2008) and (Feteris 2016). The book under review is a completely updated, revised and extended second edition: the first...

References

  1. Alexy R (1989) A theory of legal argumentation: the theory of rational discourses as a theory of legal justification. Clarendon Press, Wotton-under-EdgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2007) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif Intell 171(10–15):855–874MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, Walton D (2013) Distinctive features of persuasion and deliberation dialogues. Argum Comput 4(2):105127Google Scholar
  4. Bench-Capon T (1998) Specification and implementation of Toulmin Dialogue Game. In: Proceedings of JURIX 1998, pp 5–20Google Scholar
  5. Bench-Capon T (2017) Hypo’s legacy: introduction to the virtual special issue. Artif Intell Law 25:1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intell 150(1–2):97–143CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bench-Capon T, Lowes D, McEnery A (1991) Argument-based explanation of logic programs. Knowl Based Syst 4(3):177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K, Chorley A (2005) Persuasion and value in legal argument. J Logic Comput 15(6):1075–1097MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Berman DH, Hafner CD (1993) Representing teleological structure in case-based legal reasoning: the missing link. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp 50–59Google Scholar
  10. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77(2):321–357MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Feteris E T (1996) The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In: International conference on formal and applied practical reasoning, pp 151–166Google Scholar
  12. Feteris ET (1994) Recent developments in legal argumentation theory: dialectical approaches to legal argumentation. Rev Int Semiot Jurid 7(2):133–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feteris ET (1997) A survey of 25 years of research on legal argumentation. Argumentation 11(3):355–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feteris ET (2000) A dialogical theory of legal discussions: Pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of legalargumentation. Artif Intell Law 8(2):115–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feteris ET (2002) A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation 16(3):349367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feteris ET (2005) The rational reconstruction of argumentation referring to consequences and purposes in the application of legal rules: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 19(4):459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feteris ET (2008) The pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of teleological argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation 22(4):489–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feteris ET (2016) Prototypical argumentative patterns in a legal context: the role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisions. Argumentation 30(1):61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feteris ET, Prakken H (2000) Introduction: dialectical legal argument: formal and informal models. Artif Intell Law 8(2):107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gordon TF (2012) The Carneades web service. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, IOS Press, pp 517–518Google Scholar
  21. Gordon TF (1993) The pleadings game. Artif Intell Law 2(4):239–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171(10):875–896MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan J (eds) Syntax and semantics vol 3, speech acts. Academic Press, New York, pp 43–58Google Scholar
  24. Hamlin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Horty JF, Bench-Capon T (2012) A factor-based definition of precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 20(2):181–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mackenzie JD (1979) Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. J Philos Logic 8(1):117–133MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall CC (1989) Representing the structure of a legal argument. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp 121–127Google Scholar
  28. McCarty LT (1976) Reflections on TAXMAN: an experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Harv Law Rev 90:837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Modgil S, Prakken H (2014) The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argum Comput 5(1):31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1980) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  31. Prakken H (2001) Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese 127(1):187–219MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4(3–4):331368Google Scholar
  33. Prakken H, Sartor G (2015) Law and logic: a review from an argumentation perspective. Artif Intell 227:214–245MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Prakken H, Wyner A, Bench-Capon T, Atkinson K (2013) A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+. J Logic Comput 25(5):1141–1166MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Rigoni A (2015) An improved factor based approach to precedential constraint. Artif Intell Law 23(2):133–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Toulmin S (1958) The uses ofargument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Verheij B (2009) The Toulmin argument model in artificial intelligence. In: Simari G, Rahwan I (eds) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walton D, Krabbe EC (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts ofinterpersonal reasoning. SUNY press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  39. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Walton D, Sartor G, Macagno F (2016) An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation. Artif Intell Law 24(1):51–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zeleznikow J, Stranieri A (1995) The split-up system: integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp 185–194Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations