Arguing about causes in law : a semi-formal framework for causal arguments
Artificial intelligence and law, 2020, Vol. 28, pp. 69–89
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
Retrieved from Cadmus, EUI Research Repository
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.
First Online: 05 March 2019
Cadmus permanent link: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/62008
Full-text via DOI: 10.1007/s10506-019-09246-z
ISSN: 0924-8463; 1572-8382
External link: https://rdcu.be/bpGQO
Publisher: Springer (part of Springer Nature)
Files associated with this item
There are no files associated with this item.