Formalising debates about law-making proposals as practical reasoning

H. Prakken

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19575-9_11

Formalising debates about law-making proposals as practical reasoning

H. Prakken^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

In this paper the ASPIC+ framework for argumentation-based inference is
used for formally reconstructing two legal debates about law-making proposals:
an opinion of a legal scholar on a Dutch legislative proposal and a US commonlaw
judicial decision on whether an existing common law rule should be followed
or distinguished. Both debates are formalised as practical reasoning, with versions of the argument schemes from good and bad consequences. These case studies aim to contribute to an understanding of the logical structure of debates about lawmaking proposals. Another aim of the case studies is to provide new benchmark examples for comparing alternative formal frameworks for modelling argumentation. In particular, this paper aims to illustrate the usefulness of two features of ASPIC+: its distinction between deductive and defeasible inference rules and its ability to express arbitrary preference orderings on arguments.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Logic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking
Editors	Michał Araszkiewicz, Krzysztof Płeszka
Publisher	Springer
Chapter	11
Pages	301-321
Number of pages	21
Edition	1
ISBN (Electronic)	978-3-319-19575-9
ISBN (Print)	978-3-319-19574-2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19575-9_11
Publication status	Published - 15 Oct 2015

Publication series

Name	Legisprudence Library
Publisher	Springer
Volume	2
ISSN (Print)	2213-2813
ISSN (Electronic)	2213-2856

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-319-19575-9_11

chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-319-19575-9_11Final published version, 444 KBLicence: Taverne

Cite this

@inbook{3a8bb4dcfa8440ee9a845d196e0396b2,

title = "Formalising debates about law-making proposals as practical reasoning",

abstract = "In this paper the ASPIC+ framework for argumentation-based inference isused for formally reconstructing two legal debates about law-making proposals:an opinion of a legal scholar on a Dutch legislative proposal and a US commonlawjudicial decision on whether an existing common law rule should be followedor distinguished. Both debates are formalised as practical reasoning, with versions of the argument schemes from good and bad consequences. These case studies aim to contribute to an understanding of the logical structure of debates about lawmaking proposals. Another aim of the case studies is to provide new benchmark examples for comparing alternative formal frameworks for modelling argumentation. In particular, this paper aims to illustrate the usefulness of two features of ASPIC+: its distinction between deductive and defeasible inference rules and its ability to express arbitrary preference orderings on arguments.",

author = "H. Prakken",

year = "2015",

month = oct,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-19575-9_11",

language = "English",

isbn = "978-3-319-19574-2",

series = " Legisprudence Library",

publisher = "Springer",

pages = "301--321",

editor = "Micha{\l} Araszkiewicz and Krzysztof P{\l}eszka",

booktitle = "Logic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking",

edition = "1",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Formalising debates about law-making proposals as practical reasoning

AU - Prakken, H.

PY - 2015/10/15

Y1 - 2015/10/15

N2 - In this paper the ASPIC+ framework for argumentation-based inference isused for formally reconstructing two legal debates about law-making proposals:an opinion of a legal scholar on a Dutch legislative proposal and a US commonlawjudicial decision on whether an existing common law rule should be followedor distinguished. Both debates are formalised as practical reasoning, with versions of the argument schemes from good and bad consequences. These case studies aim to contribute to an understanding of the logical structure of debates about lawmaking proposals. Another aim of the case studies is to provide new benchmark examples for comparing alternative formal frameworks for modelling argumentation. In particular, this paper aims to illustrate the usefulness of two features of ASPIC+: its distinction between deductive and defeasible inference rules and its ability to express arbitrary preference orderings on arguments.

AB - In this paper the ASPIC+ framework for argumentation-based inference isused for formally reconstructing two legal debates about law-making proposals:an opinion of a legal scholar on a Dutch legislative proposal and a US commonlawjudicial decision on whether an existing common law rule should be followedor distinguished. Both debates are formalised as practical reasoning, with versions of the argument schemes from good and bad consequences. These case studies aim to contribute to an understanding of the logical structure of debates about lawmaking proposals. Another aim of the case studies is to provide new benchmark examples for comparing alternative formal frameworks for modelling argumentation. In particular, this paper aims to illustrate the usefulness of two features of ASPIC+: its distinction between deductive and defeasible inference rules and its ability to express arbitrary preference orderings on arguments.

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-19575-9_11

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-19575-9_11

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-3-319-19574-2

T3 - Legisprudence Library

SP - 301

EP - 321

BT - Logic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking

A2 - Araszkiewicz, Michał

A2 - Płeszka, Krzysztof

PB - Springer

ER -

Formalising debates about law-making proposals as practical reasoning

Abstract

Publication series

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this