Advertisement

Defeasible Reasoning with Legal Rules

  • Lambèr Royakkers
  • Frank Dignum
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)

Abstract

The last few years several defeasible deontic reasoning formalisms are developed as a way to solve the problem of deontic inconsistency. However, these formalisms are unable to deal with some very common forms of deontic reasoning, since e.g. their expressiveness is restricted. In this paper we will establish a priority hierarchy of legal rules to solve the problem of deontic conflicts and we will give a mechanism to reason about nonmonotonicity of legal rules over the priority hierarchy. The theory presented here, based on default logic and a modification and extension of the argumentation framework of Prakken, properly deals with some shortcomings of other defeasible deontic reasoning approaches.

Keywords

Legal Rule Deontic Logic Argumentation Framework Conditional Norm Default Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Brewka G. Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proceedings IJCAI-1991, pp 1043–1048.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Poole D. A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial intelligence 1988; 36:27–47.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Prakken H. Logical tools for modelling legal argument. PhD thesis, Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Shoham Y. Reasoning about change, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    McDermott D and Doyle J Non-monotonic logic I. Artificial intelligence 1980; 13:41–72.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Reiter R. A Logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 1980; 13:81–132.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Pollock J. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 1987; 11(4):481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Alchourrón C and Makinson D. Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In: Hilpinen R (ed) New studies in deontic logic. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1981, pp 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Royakkers L and Dignum F. Deontic inconsistencies and authorities. In: Breuker J (ed) Normative reasoning, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Horty J. Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic. Journal of philosophical logic 1994; 23:35–65.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Ryu Y. Conditional deontic logic augmented with defeasible reasoning, submitted to Data & knowledge engineering.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Tan Y.-H and Van der Torre L. Multi preference semantics for a defeasible deontic logic. In: Prakken H (ed) Legal knowledge based systems. The relation with legal theory. Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, 1994, pp 115–126.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Prakken H. Two approaches to defeasible reasoning. In: Jones A and Sergot M (eds) Proceedings of second international workshop on deontic logic in computer science. Tano, Norway, 1994, pp 281–295.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Dung P. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In: Proceedings IJCAI-93, pp. 852–857.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hart H. The concept of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Delgrande J. An approach to default reasoning based on a first-order conditional logic. Artificial intelligence 1988; 36:63–90.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Rescher N. Hypothetical reasoning. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1964.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Kelsen H. Reine rechtslehre. Zweite auflage, Wien, 1975.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Reiter R. Nonmonotonic reasoning. Annual review of computer science 1987; 2:147–186.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Sartor G. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. Rechtstheorie 1993; 24:281–316.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Prakken H and Sartor G. On the relation between legal language and legal argument: assumptions, applicability and dynamic priorities. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. University of Maryland, MD USA, 1995, pp 1–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lambèr Royakkers
    • 1
  • Frank Dignum
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Law and InformatizationTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science EindhovenUniverstity of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations