An ASPIC-based legal argumentation framework for deontic reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
In the last years, argumentation theory has been exploited to reason about norms, argue about enforced obligations and permissions, and establish the validity of norms seen as argumentative claims. In this paper, we start from the dynamic legal argumentation framework recently proposed by Prakken and Sartor, and we extend their ASPIC-based system by introducing deontic modalities, to include also normative concepts like factual and deontic detachment, and normative dynamics. Properties of the original and proposed legal argumentation system are presented and discussed, and related to deontic logic and logics of normative systems.
منابع مشابه
Argumentation Corner A formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+
In this article we offer a formal account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are formalized as defeasible rules of inference within the ASPIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and th...
متن کاملA formalization of argumentation schemes for legal case-based reasoning in ASPIC+
In this paper we offer a formal account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are formalised as defeasible rules of inference within the ASPIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and then...
متن کاملFormalising a legal opinion on a legislative proposal in the ASPIC+ framework
This paper presents a case study in which an opinion of a legal scholar on a legislative proposal is formally reconstructed in the ASPIC+ framework for argumentation-based inference. The reconstruction uses a version of the argument scheme for good and bad consequences that does not refer to single but to sets of consequences, in order to model aggregation of reasons for and against proposals. ...
متن کاملReasoning about Preferences in Structured Extended Argumentation Frameworks
This paper combines two recent extensions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frameworks in order to define an abstract formalism for reasoning about preferences in structured argumentation frameworks. First, extended argumentation frameworks extend Dung frameworks with attacks on attacks, thus providing an abstract dialectical semantics that accommodates argumentation-based reasoning about prefer...
متن کاملAbstract Rule-Based Argumentation
Rule-Based Argumentation Sanjay Modgil, Henry Prakken abstract. This chapter reviews abstract rule-based approaches to argumentation, in particular the ASPIC framework. In ASPIC and its This chapter reviews abstract rule-based approaches to argumentation, in particular the ASPIC framework. In ASPIC and its predecessors, going back to the seminal work of John Pollock, arguments can be formed by ...
متن کامل