Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Law, Logic, Rhetoric: A Procedural Model of Legal Argumentation

  • Chapter
Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science

Part of the book series: Logic, Epistemology, And The Unity Of Science ((LEUS,volume 1))

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alexy, R.: 1989,A Theory of Legal Argumentation, Oxford, Clarendon press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K. D.: 1990,Modelling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, E. M. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1982,From Axiom to Dialogue, Berlin, New York, Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J. A.: 2001, ‘Walton's Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development’,Argumentation 15, 365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L. K.: 1991,Integrating Rules and Precedents for Classification: Automating Legal Analysis, Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, K. and A. M. Farley: 1996, ‘A Model of Argumentation and Its Application to Legal Reasoning’,Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 163–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F.: 1995,The Pleadings Game – An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier, T.: 1987,Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Dordrecht, Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C.: 1997,Reasoning with Rules, An Essay on Legal Reasoning and its Underlying Logic, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, in Richard Clay (ed.),Fallacies, Bungay, Suffolk, The Chaucer Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. M.: 1963,Freedom and Reason, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leith: 1986, ‘Fundamental Errors in Legal Logic Programming’,The Computer Journal 29(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P. and J. Norman: 1995, ‘Rationales and Argument Moves’,Artificial Intelligence and Law 3, 159–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, J. D.: 1979, ‘Question-Begging in Non-cumulative Systems’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nutting, K.: 2002, ‘Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law’,Argumentation 16, 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik, A.: 1989,On Law and Reason, Dorcrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik, A.: 1996, ‘Jumps and Logic in the Law’,Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 297–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1971,The New Rhetoric, A Treatise on Argumention, London, University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and G. Sartor: 1996, ‘A Dialectical Model of Assessing in Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 331–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H.: 1997, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, A Study of Defeasible Reasoning in Law, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J.: 1972, A Theory of Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N.: 1977, Dialectics, A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, Albany, State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G.: 1994, ‘A Formal Model of Legal Argumentation’, Ratio Iuris 7(2), 177–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R.: 1969, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skalak, D. B. and E. L. Rissland: 1992, ‘Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining’, Artificial Intelligence and Law 1, 3–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, C. L.: 1944, Ethics and Language, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, The 1979 reprint of the 1944 edn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, C. W.: 1999, Acts of Arguing, A Rhetorical Model of Argument, Albany, New York, State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, B.: 1996, Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat, Dissertation, Universiteit Maastricht.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G. A. W.: 1993, Studies in Defeasible Argumentation, Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue, Albany, State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.: 1996, Argument Structure A Pragmatic Theory, University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, C.: 1971, Challenge and Response: Justification in Ethics, Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer/Law Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Arno R. Lodder

Authors
  1. Arno R. Lodder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. King's College London, U.K.

    Dov M. Gabbay

  2. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

    Jean Paul van Bendegem

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation