Defeasible Reasoning with Legal Rules
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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Brewka G. Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: Proceedings IJCAI-1991, pp 1043–1048.Google Scholar
- Prakken H. Logical tools for modelling legal argument. PhD thesis, Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
- Shoham Y. Reasoning about change, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988.Google Scholar
- Royakkers L and Dignum F. Deontic inconsistencies and authorities. In: Breuker J (ed) Normative reasoning, 1994.Google Scholar
- Ryu Y. Conditional deontic logic augmented with defeasible reasoning, submitted to Data & knowledge engineering.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hart H. The concept of law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961.Google Scholar
- Rescher N. Hypothetical reasoning. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1964.Google Scholar
- Kelsen H. Reine rechtslehre. Zweite auflage, Wien, 1975.Google Scholar
- Sartor G. Defeasibility in legal reasoning. Rechtstheorie 1993; 24:281–316.Google Scholar
- 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