Defeasibility in legal reasoning by giovanni sartor ssrn. Dworkin 1977, 26 and, more clearly, peczenick 1991. While particularly relevant to the tasks of lawyers and judges, the requirements of legal reasoning also affect the legislator because addition of new rules or modification of existing ones needs to be. Giovanni sartor universita di bologna pubblicazioni. Firstly, examples are illustrated concerning the dynamics of legal systems, the application of rules and exceptions, and the semantic indeterminacy of legal sources. Handbook of legal reasoning and argumentation 1st ed.
Computable models of the law languages, dialogues, games. Normative conflicts in legal reasoning springerlink. Informatics and the foundations of legal reasoning, 119157, 1995. All content in this area was uploaded by giovanni sartor on jan 15, 2015. In this paper we will analyse the issue of defeasibility in the law, taking into account research carried out in philosophy, artificial intelligence and legal theory. Handbook of legal reasoning and argumentation giorgio. The thirtysecond annual conference, amsterdam, ios press, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. European policies on transparency and information society, in particular, require the use of technology and its steady improvement. Assn legal writing directors 179, 181 2006 arguing that despite the theory of rhetoric as outcomedeterminative of legal decisionmaking, formal logic can be a possible. University of groningen law and logic prakken, henry. The first one introduces and discusses the basic concepts of practical reasoning.
Fabrizio macagno, giovanni sartor, and douglas walton. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories. Giovanni sartor university of bologna publications. Lev, this i is an attempt to describe generally the process of legal reasoning in the field of case law and in the interpretation of statutes and of the constitution. The three faces of defeasibility in the law semantic scholar.
Defeasibility in legal reasoning oxford scholarship. I shall then argue that cognitive agents need to engage in defeasible reasoning for coping with a complex and changing environment. First it is argued that legal norms and in particular. Argumentbased extended logic programming with defeasible. Pdf argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation. A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match1 jaap hage university of limburg, department of metajuridica, email. Handbook of legal reasoning and argumentation springerlink. The paper gives a formal reconstruction of some fundamental patterns of legal reasoning, intended to reconcile symbolic logic and argumentation theory. Defeasibility in legal reasoning giovanni sartor european university institute, florence cirsfid, university of bologna i shall. Legal writing is challenging, in part, because the clarity and effectiveness of the. A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating. Giovanni sartor is currently principal investigator for the erc europen research council advanced project compulaw, started on 1 november 2019, to be completed on 31 october 2024. Le direzioni della ricerca logica in italia, pisa, edizioni della normale, 2015, pp. The main forms of legal reasoning and argumentation are covered in an exhaustive and critical fashion, and are analysed in connection with more general types and problems of reasoning.
Normative conflicts in legal reasoning 211 more tractable cf. I have published mainly in legal theory, legal informatics, and computer law. We will focus special attention on common law reasoning, but will consider other topics as well. Pdf normative conflicts in legal reasoning giovanni. Reasoning with cases has been a primary focus of those working in ai and law who have attempted to model legal reasoning. This paper shows how defeasible argumentation schemes can be used to represent the logical structure of the arguments used in statutory interpretation. An introduction to legal reasoning university of chicago. Arguments are expressed in a logicprogramming language with both weak and strong negation, conflicts between. Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent legal.
Legal norms are represented as unidirectional inference rules which can be combined into arguments. Consequently, defeasibility is needed in practical reasoning, and in particular in legal reasoning. He is parttime professor in legal informatics at the university of bologna and parttime professor in legal informatics and legal theory at the european university. English giovanni sartor is professor in legal informatics at the university of bologna and professor in legal informatics and legal theory at the european university institute of florence. The cognitive foundations of group attitudes and social interaction, dordrech, springer, 2015, pp. Then two approaches to cope with conflicting information are presented. We will adopt a very general idea of legal defeasibility, in which we will include all different ways in which certain legal conclusions may need to be abandoned, though no mistake was made in deriving them. Legal reasoning legal reasoning is the particular method of arguing used when applying legal rules to particular interactions among legal persons. Apr 30, 2019 part iii special kinds of legal reasoning. In this paper we put forward a formal model of reasoning with cases which captures many of the insights from that previous work. The main forms of legal reasoning and argumentation are covered in an exhaustive and critical fashion, and are analysed in connection with more general types and.
Palmirani, giovanni sartor, radboud winkels and adam wyner. It is important that the mechanism of legal reasoning should not be concealed by its pretense. We would also like to thank henry prakken for his collaboration with us on carneades and fruitful discussions about combining forms of reasoning using bridge rules. Thus, this book teaches and illustrates the underlying skills of legal reasoning and analysis that are integral components of effective legal writing. An earlier version of this talk was presented at the cmna workshop in 2008. If we had such a useful, normative method, it would surely be. He obtained a phd at the european university institute florence, was a researcher at the italian national council of research ittig, florence, held the. More on presumptions and burdens of proof by henry prakken. We argue that these differences largely are not a matter of logic but of legal policy. Trev or benchcapon and henry prakken and giovanni sartor. Accordingly, the subject matter of the handbook divides in three parts. Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent volume 17 issue 1 john f. This handbook addresses legal reasoning and argumentation from a logical, philosophical and legal perspective. Trevorbenchcapon, henry prakken, and giovanni sartor.
In particular we shall address the eleven kinds of argument identified maccormick and summers 6 and the thirteen kinds of argument by tarello 11. Pdf argumentation in legal reasoning giovanni sartor. Abstract inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a semantics and proof theory of a system for defeasible argumentation. This article proposes a formal analysis of a fundamental aspect of legal reasoning. In this paper we put forward a formal model of reasoning with cases which captures many of the. Legal reasoning seems to be most distinctive in those societies that have experienced the emergence of a special professional class of lawmen, with its own special professional traditions and institutional values. Legal reasoning, writing, and other lawyering skills.
Improving the representationof legal case texts with information extraction methods. Suggested citation sartor, giovanni, defeasibility in legal reasoning march 1, 2009. The thirtysecond annual conference, amsterdam, ios press, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, 2019, 322, pp. An individual user may print out a pdf of a single chapter of a. On comparative evaluations and defeasibility in moral thinking, of. We show that interpretative argumentation has a distinctive structure where the claim that a. This paper describes a model of legal reasoning and a logic for reasoning with rules, principles and goals that is especially suited to this model of legal reasoning. Chapter 1 argumentation in legal reasoning trevor benchcapon and henry prakken and giovanni sartor 1. Chapter 2 interpretative arguments and the application of the law. Chapter 3 statutory interpretation as argumentation.
1395 1459 1239 687 1157 502 434 159 200 1348 778 1362 117 1212 1521 1014 1082 198 1533 644 1290 182 1399 1169 891 218 78 440 1079 211 769 1456 360 528 916