Analiza argumentacji prawniczej. Który z modeli teoretycznych jest najbardziej kompleksowy?

Today, there is a clear need in developing a unified theoretical model of legal argumentation viable for all areas of legal practice and legal doctrine. Despite the existence of several models within either general argumentation theory or multiple judicial-reasoning doctrines, none of them can be used as a universal tool for studies of legal argumentation. The aim of this article is to suggest a theoretical model of legal argumentation viable for analysis of legal argumentation not only in judicial reasoning but also in other areas, e.g., law making, law application, or law interpretation. The subject matter of this article is a theoretical model of legal argumentation as a universal multidisciplinary theoretical basis for legal argumentation analysis. The theoretical model of legal argumentation encompasses an argumentative situation, a body of legal arguing, instruments of legal arguing and argumentation, a reconstruction and an evaluation of legal argumentation. In its turn, the body of legal arguing includes: parties of legal arguing, a subject of legal arguing, and a content of legal arguing. The instruments of legal arguing include legal and other arguments, argument schemes, argumentation structures, and rules of legal argumentation.Obecnie istnieje wyraźna potrzeba opracowania jednolitego modelu teoretycznego argumentacji prawniczej, przystającego do wszystkich dziedzin praktyki i doktryny prawa. Pomimo istnienia kilku modeli – czy to w ramach ogólnej teorii argumentacji, czy to w ramach rozmaitych doktryn rozumowania sądowego – żadnego z nich nie można użyć jako uniwersalnego narzędzia do badania argumentacji prawniczej. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zasugerowanie teoretycznego modelu argumentacji prawniczej, odpowiedniego dla analizy nie tylko w rozumowaniach sądowych, lecz także w pozostałych obszarach, np. w legislacji czy też w procesie stosowania lub wykładni prawa. Przedmiotem opracowania jest teoretyczny model argumentacji prawniczej jako uniwersalnej multidyscyplinarnej bazy teoretycznej dla analizy argumentacji prawniczej. Teoretyczny model argumentacji prawniczej obejmuje sytuację argumentacyjną, elementy sporu prawnego, instrumenty sporu prawnego i argumentacji prawniczej, rekonstrukcję i ocenę argumentacji prawniczej. Z kolei elementy sporu prawnego obejmują: strony sporu prawnego; przedmiot sporu prawnego; treść sporu prawnego. Instrumenty sporu prawnego to: argumenty prawne i inne, schematy argumentacyjne, struktury argumentacyjne oraz zasady argumentacji prawniczej

Dealing with Qualitative and Quantitative Features in Legal Domains

In this work, we enrich a formalism for argumentation by including a formal characterization of features related to the knowledge, in order to capture proper reasoning in legal domains. We add meta-data information to the arguments in the form of labels representing quantitative and qualitative data about them. These labels are propagated through an argumentative graph according to the relations of support, conflict, and aggregation between arguments.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1903.0186

Civil Procedure as a Critical Discussion

This Article develops a model for analyzing legal dispute resolution systems as systems for argumentation. Our model meshes two theories of argument conceived centuries apart: contemporary argumentation theory and classical stasis theory. In this Article, we apply the model to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a proof of concept. Specifically, the model analyzes how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure function as a staged argumentative critical discussion designed to permit judge and jury to rationally resolve litigants’ differences in a reasonable manner. At a high level, this critical discussion has three phases: a confrontation, an (extended) opening, and a concluding phase. Those phases are the umbrella under which discrete argumentation phases occur at points we call stases. Whenever litigants seek a ruling or judgment, they reach a stasis—a stopping or standing point for arguing procedural points of disagreement. During these stases, the parties make arguments that fall into predictable “commonplace” argument types. Taken together, these stock argument types form a taxonomy of arguments for all civil cases. Our claim that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure function as a system for argumentation is novel, as is our claim that civil cases breed a taxonomy of argument types. These claims also mark the beginning of a broader project. Starting here with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we embark on a journey that we expect to follow for several years (and which we hope other scholars will join), exploring our model’s application across dispute resolution systems and using it to make normative claims about those systems. From a birds-eye view, this Article also represents a short modern trek in a much longer journey begun by advocates in city states in and near Greece nearly 2500 years ago

A Labelling Framework for Probabilistic Argumentation

The combination of argumentation and probability paves the way to new accounts of qualitative and quantitative uncertainty, thereby offering new theoretical and applicative opportunities. Due to a variety of interests, probabilistic argumentation is approached in the literature with different frameworks, pertaining to structured and abstract argumentation, and with respect to diverse types of uncertainty, in particular the uncertainty on the credibility of the premises, the uncertainty about which arguments to consider, and the uncertainty on the acceptance status of arguments or statements. Towards a general framework for probabilistic argumentation, we investigate a labelling-oriented framework encompassing a basic setting for rule-based argumentation and its (semi-) abstract account, along with diverse types of uncertainty. Our framework provides a systematic treatment of various kinds of uncertainty and of their relationships and allows us to back or question assertions from the literature

Theory of Regulatory Compliance for Requirements Engineering

Regulatory compliance is increasingly being addressed in the practice of requirements engineering as a main stream concern. This paper points out a gap in the theoretical foundations of regulatory compliance, and presents a theory that states (i) what it means for requirements to be compliant, (ii) the compliance problem, i.e., the problem that the engineer should resolve in order to verify whether requirements are compliant, and (iii) testable hypotheses (predictions) about how compliance of requirements is verified. The theory is instantiated by presenting a requirements engineering framework that implements its principles, and is exemplified on a real-world case study.Comment: 16 page