Date: 2016
Type: Article
An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation
Artificial intelligence and law, 2016, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 51–91
WALTON, Douglas, SARTOR, Giovanni, MACAGNO, Fabrizio, An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation, Artificial intelligence and law, 2016, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 51–91
- https://hdl.handle.net/1814/45228
Retrieved from Cadmus, EUI Research Repository
This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of contested statutory interpretation in law. A simplified version of the Carneades Argumentation System is applied in a case analysis showing how the procedure works. A logical model for statutory interpretation is finally presented, covering pro-tanto and all-things-considered interpretive conclusions.
Additional information:
First Online: 22 March 2016
Cadmus permanent link: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/45228
Full-text via DOI: 10.1007/s10506-016-9179-0
ISSN: 1572-8382; 0924-8463
Publisher: Springer
Files associated with this item
Files | Size | Format | View |
---|---|---|---|
There are no files associated with this item. |