Arguing about causes in law : a semi-formal framework for causal arguments
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
0924-8463; 1572-8382
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Artificial intelligence and law, 2020, Vol. 28, pp. 69–89
Cite
LIEPIŅA, Rūta, SARTOR, Giovanni, WYNER, Adam, Arguing about causes in law : a semi-formal framework for causal arguments, Artificial intelligence and law, 2020, Vol. 28, pp. 69–89 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/62008
Abstract
Disputes over causes play a central role in legal argumentation and liability attribution. Legal approaches to causation often struggle to capture cause-in-fact in complex situations, e.g. overdetermination, preemption, omission. In this paper, we first assess three current theories of causation (but-for, NESS, ‘actual causation’) to illustrate their strengths and weaknesses in capturing cause-in-fact. Secondly, we introduce a semi-formal framework for modelling causal arguments through strict and defeasible rules. Thirdly, the framework is applied to the Althen vaccine injury case. And lastly, we discuss the need for new criteria based on a common causal argumentation framework and propose ideas on how to integrate the current theories of causation to assess the strength of causal arguments, while also acknowledging the tension between evidence-based and policy-based causal analysis in law.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
First Online: 05 March 2019