research-article

Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation: two options for modelling interpretive arguments

Authors:

Antonino Rotolo,

Guido Governatori,

Giovanni SartorAuthors Info & Claims

ICAIL '15: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Pages 99 - 108

https://doi.org/10.1145/2746090.2746100

Published: 08 June 2015 Publication History

Abstract

This paper offers a new logical machinery for reasoning about interpretive canons. We identify some options for modelling reasoning about interpretations and show that interpretative argumentation has a distinctive structure where the claim that a legal text ought or may be interpreted in a certain way can be supported or attacked by arguments, whose conflicts may have to be assessed according to further arguments.

References

[1]

R. Alexy and R. Dreier. Statutory interpretation in the Federal Republic of Germany. In MacCormick and Summers {11}.

[2]

G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori, and M. Maher. Representation results for defeasible logic. ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 2(2): 255--287, 2001.

Digital Library

[3]

M. Araszkiewicz. Towards systematic research on statutory interpretation in AI and law. In Proc. JURIX 2013. IOS Press, 2013.

[4]

M. Araszkiewicz. Scientia juris: A missing link in the modelling of statutory reasoning. In Proc. JURIX 2014. IOS Press, 2014.

[5]

G. Boella, G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, and L. van der Torre. A logical understanding of legal interpretation. In Proc. KR 2010. AAAI Press, 2010.

[6]

B. Brozek. Legal interpretation and coherence. In M. Araszkiewicz and J. Savelka, editors, Coherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2013.

[7]

G. Governatori, F. Olivieri, A. Rotolo, and S. Scannapieco. Computing strong and weak permissions in defeasible logic. J. Philosophical Logic, 42(6): 799--829, 2013.

[8]

G. Governatori and A. Rotolo. BIO logical agents: Norms, beliefs, intentions in defeasible logic. Auton. Agent Multi Agent Syst., 17(1): 36--69, 2008.

Digital Library

[9]

G. Governatori and A. Rotolo. Changing legal systems: Legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 18: 157--194, 2010.

[10]

F. Macagno, G. Sartor, and D. Walton. Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation. In Proc. ARGUMENTATION 2012. Masaryk University, 2012.

[11]

D. MacCormick and R. Summers, editors. Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study. Ashgate, 1991.

[12]

H. Prakken and G. Sartor. Formalising arguments about norms. In Proc. JURIX 2013. IOS Press, 2013.

[13]

A. Ross. On Law and Justice. Stevens, London, 1958.

[14]

G. Sartor, D. Walton, F. Macagno, and A. Rotolo. Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation: A logical analysis. In Proc. JURIX 2014. IOS Press, 2014.

[15]

G. Tarello. L'interpretazione della legge. Giuffrè, 1980.

Cited By

Licato J(2024)Automated ethical reasoners must be interpretation-capableTrolley Crash10.1016/B978-0-44-315991-6.00010-8(53-68)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-44-315991-6.00010-8
Sartor G(2023)Interpretation, Argumentation, and the Determinacy of LawRatio Juris10.1111/raju.1238936:3(214-241)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12389
Sciolla JPaseri L(2023)Anonymisation of Judicial Rulings for Legal Analytics Purposes: Ethics, Law, and ComplianceProgress in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-49011-8_9(105-117)Online publication date: 15-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49011-8_9
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation: two options for modelling interpretive arguments
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
2. Theory of computation
  1. Logic

Recommendations

A Modal Defeasible Reasoner of Deontic Logic for the Semantic Web

Defeasible logic is a non-monotonic formalism that deals with incomplete and conflicting information, whereas modal logic deals with the concepts of necessity and possibility. These types of logics play a significant role in the emerging Semantic Web, ...
A Deontic Argumentation Framework Based on Deontic Defeasible Logic
PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems
Abstract
Deontic Defeasible Logic (DDL) is a simple and computationally efficient approach for the representation of normative reasoning. Traditionally defeasible logics are defined proof theoretically based on the proof conditions for the logic. In this ...
Deontic logic with defeasible detachment

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

ICAIL '15: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

June 2015

246 pages

ISBN:9781450335225

DOI:10.1145/2746090

Conference Chair:
Ted Sichelman
University of San Diego School of Law, San Diego, CA
,
Program Chair:
Katie Atkinson
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Copyright © 2015 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Center for IP Law & Markets: Center for Intellectual Property Law & Markets, University of San Diego School of Law
TrademarkNow: TrademarkNow
The International Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law
Davis Polk: Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Legal Robot: Legal Robot
Thomson Reuters: Thomson Reuters Corporation

In-Cooperation

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 June 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Australian Government
Australian Research Council

Conference

ICAIL '15

Sponsor:

Center for IP Law & Markets
TrademarkNow
Davis Polk
Legal Robot
Thomson Reuters

ICAIL '15: 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

June 8 - 12, 2015

California, San Diego

Acceptance Rates

ICAIL '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 30 of 58 submissions, 52%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

20
Total Citations
View Citations
181
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)8
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 06 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Licato J(2024)Automated ethical reasoners must be interpretation-capableTrolley Crash10.1016/B978-0-44-315991-6.00010-8(53-68)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-44-315991-6.00010-8
Sartor G(2023)Interpretation, Argumentation, and the Determinacy of LawRatio Juris10.1111/raju.1238936:3(214-241)Online publication date: 14-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12389
Sciolla JPaseri L(2023)Anonymisation of Judicial Rulings for Legal Analytics Purposes: Ethics, Law, and ComplianceProgress in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-49011-8_9(105-117)Online publication date: 15-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49011-8_9
Novotná TLibal T(2022)An Evaluation of Methodologies for Legal FormalizationExplainable and Transparent AI and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-031-15565-9_12(189-203)Online publication date: 23-Sep-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15565-9_12
Muthuri RCapecchi SSulis EAmantea IBoella G(2021)Integrating value modeling and legal risk management: an IT case studyInformation Systems and e-Business Management10.1007/s10257-021-00543-220:1(27-55)Online publication date: 9-Nov-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-021-00543-2
Malerba ARotolo AGovernatori G(2021)A Logic for the Interpretation of Private International LawNew Developments in Legal Reasoning and Logic10.1007/978-3-030-70084-3_7(149-169)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70084-3_7
Walton DMacagno FSartor G(2020)Classification and Formalization of Interpretative SchemesStatutory Interpretation10.1017/9781108554572.007(280-332)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2020
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108554572.007
Walton DMacagno FSartor G(2020)Arguments of Statutory Interpretation and Argumentation SchemesStatutory Interpretation10.1017/9781108554572.006(205-279)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2020
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108554572.006
Moguillansky MTamargo L(2020)On argument acceptability change towards legal interpretation dynamicsArtificial Intelligence and Law10.1007/s10506-020-09277-xOnline publication date: 10-Oct-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09277-x
Bench-Capon T(2019)Before and after Dung: Argumentation in AI and LawArgument & Computation10.3233/AAC-190477(1-18)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2019
https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-190477
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents