Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Hard cases: A procedural approach

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much work on legal knowledge systems treats legal reasoning as arguments that lead from a description of the law and the facts of a case, to the legal conclusion for the case. The reasoning steps of the inference engine parallel the logical steps by means of which the legal conclusion is derived from the factual and legal premises. In short, the relation between the input and the output of a legal inference engine is a logical one. The truth of the conclusion only depends on the premises, and is independent of the argument that leads to the conclusion.

This paper opposes the logical approach, and defends a procedural approach to legal reasoning. Legal conclusions are not true or false independent of the reasoning process that ended in these conclusions. In critical cases this reasoning process consists of an adversarial procedure in which several parties are involved. The course of the argument determines whether the conclusion is true or false. The phenomenon of hard cases is used to demonstrate this essential procedural nature of legal reasoning.

Dialogical Reason Based Logic offers a framework that makes it possible to model legal dialogues. We use Dialogical Reason Based Logic to specify hard cases in dialogical terms. Moreover, we analyse an actual Dutch hard case in terms of Dialogical Reason Based Logic, to demonstrate both the possibilities and the shortcomings of this approach.

It turns out that there is no one set of rational dialogue rules. There are many concurring sets of rules that govern particular types of dialogues. The rules for legal procedures are as much part of the law as the more substantial rules. As a consequence, it is not possible to offer an universal set of dialogue rules. Dialogical Reason Based Logic rather provides a framework which can be filled with dialogue rules that determine which dialogues are valid and which ones are invalid.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Alexy, R. 1978.Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Frankfurt am Main. Suhrkamp Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. 1991. Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals in HYPO.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34: 753–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. & Rissland, E.L. 1988. Waiting on Weighting: A Symbolic Least Commitment Approach.Proceeding AAAI-88, 239–244. American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

  • Ashley, K.D. & Rissland, E.L. 1987. But, See, Accord: Generating Blue Book Citations in HYPO, Proceedings ofThe First International Conference on Artifical Intelligence and Law, 67–74. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, E.M. & Krabbe, E.C.W. 1982.From Axiom to Dialogue. New York: Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.S. & Leng, P.H. 1991. Interacting with Knowledge Systems Through Dialogue Games. Proceedings ofThe 11th Annual Conference on Expert Systems and their Applications, 123–130. Avignon.

  • Berman, D.H. & Hafner, C.D. 1987. Indeterminacy: A Challenge to Logic-based Models of Legal Reasoning,Yearbook of Law, Computers and Technology 3: 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H.I. 1988.Rationality. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. 1978.Taking Rights Seriously, 2nd ed., London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R 1986.Laws Empire, London: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, A. von der Lieth 1987.An Artifical Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning, Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geffner, H. & Pearl, J. 1992. Conditional Entailment: Bridging Two Approaches to Default Reasoning,Artificial Intelligence 53: 209–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, M. (ed.) 1987.Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Palo Alto: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Th. F. 1991. An Abductive Theory of Legal Issues,International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35: 95–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Th. F. 1993a. The Pleadings Game — Formalizing Procedural Justice,Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10–19. Amsterdam: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Th. F. 1993b.The Pleadings Game. An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. PhD thesis, Darmstadt.

  • Haan, N. den 1993. Towards Support for Drafting Legislation. InLegal Knowledge Based Systems. Intelligent Tools for Drafting Legislation, Computer Supported Comparison of Law, eds. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haersolte, R.A.V. van 1975. Monoloog met mijn schuldeiser,De mens en het zijne, 146–164. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J.C. 1992. Redeneren met de strekking van rechtsregels. (Reasoning with the purpose of rules) (H. de Swaan Arons, H. Koppelaar and E.J.H. Kerckhoffs eds.)Proceedings NAIC '92, Delft, pp. 43–52.

  • Hage, J.C. 1993. Monological Reason Based Logic. Proceedings ofThe Fourth International Conference on Law and Artificial Intelligence, 30–39 Amsterdam: ACM-press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J.C., Span, G.P.J. & Lodder, A.R. 1992. A Dialogical Model of Legal Reasoning. InLegal Knowledge Based Systems: Information Technology and Law, JURIX '92, Grütters, C.A.F.M., J.A.P.J Breuker H.J. Van Den Herik, A.H.J. Schmidt, & C.N.J. de Vey Mestdagh eds., Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H.L.A. 1958. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy, (H.L.A. Hart), Oxford 1983; Clarendon Press, pp. 49–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H.L.A. 1967. Problems of the Philosophy of Law,Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy, Oxford 1983; Clarendon Press, pp. 88–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H.L.A. 1961.The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kordelaar, P. 1993. Supporting the Drafting of a New Dutch National Assistance Act with Expertisze, InLegal knowledge based systems. Intelligent Tools for Drafting Legislation, Computer Supported Comparison of Law, J.S. Svensson, J.G.J. Wassink and B. van Buggenhout (eds.) Lelystad; Koninklijke Vermande B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn. T.S. 1970.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press.

  • Lorenzen, P. & Lorenz, K. 1978.Dialogische Logik, Darmstadt: Wissenschafliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louie, R. & Chen W. 1992. An Argument Game.Technical Report WUCS-92-47. Washington University: Dept. of Computer Science.

  • MacCormick, D.N. & Weinberger, O. 1987.An Institutional Theory of Law, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publ. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, J.D. 1979. Question-Begging in Non-Cumulative Systems.Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 159–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G.H. 1934,Mind, Self & Society, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A. 1990.Unified Theories of Cognition, Cambridge Mass., London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitta, K., Wong, S. & Othake Y. 1993. A Computational Model for Trial Reasoning. Proceedings ofThe Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 20–29 ACM Press.

  • Perelman, Ch. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969.The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, London: University of Notre Dame Press,

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.L. 1987. Defeasible Reasoning.Cognitive Science 11: 481–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1972.A Theory of Justice, Oxford. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. 1975.Practical Reason and Norms, London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E.L. & Skalak, D.B. 1991. CABARET: Rule Interpretation in a Hybrid Structure.International Journal for Man-Machine Studies, 34: 839–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R 1980.Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiter, D.W.P. 1993.Institutional Legal Facts: Legal Powers and Their Effects. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J.R. 1969.Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press.

  • Skalak, D.B. & Rissland, E.L. 1992. Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining.Artificial intelligence and Law, 1 (1): 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, R.E. 1987.Expert Systems in Law, a Jurisprudential Inquiry, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, J.S. 1993.Kennisgebaseerde microsimulatie. (Knowledge Based Microsimulation), PhD-thesis Enschede.

  • Toulmin, S.E. 1958.The Uses of Argument, London, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk, G.A.W. 1993.Studies in Defeasible Argumentation. PhD-thesis, Amsterdam.

  • Waismann, F. 1949. Verifiability.Logic and Language, A. Flew, ed. 1st series, Oxford 1949.

  • Witteveen, W.J. 1988.De retoriek in het recht, Zwolle. W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Limburg, P. O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands

    Jaap C. Hage

  2. University of Twente, P. O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Ronald Leenes

  3. University of Limburg, P. O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Arno R. Lodder

Authors
  1. Jaap C. Hage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald Leenes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arno R. Lodder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hage, J.C., Leenes, R. & Lodder, A.R. Hard cases: A procedural approach. Artif Intell Law 2, 113–167 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871759

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871759

Keywords

Search

Navigation