An arugmentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpertation

Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1):51-91 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of contested statutory interpretation in law. A simplified version of the Carneades Argumentation System is applied in a case analysis showing how the procedure works. A logical model for statutory interpretation is finally presented, covering pro-tanto and all-things-considered interpretive conclusions.
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
WALAAF-9
Upload history
Archival date: 2022-01-06
View other versions
Added to PP index
2017-09-23

Total views
42 ( #67,017 of 72,561 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #57,828 of 72,561 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.