Penafsiran, Penalaran, dan Argumentasi Hukum yang Rasional

Indonesia applys civil law system which emphasizes on written law. This is why almost ail Indonesian positive laws are written law. Implementation of written laws needs rational legal interpretation, legal reasoning and legal argumentation in order to be able to follow development changes of Indonesian people. Results of legal interpretation, legal reasoning and legal argumentation will explain why certain laws and regulations are applied for a certain fenomena, or considered as applicable laws and regulations for certain development activities, or should be formed as legal base for certain activities. Rational legal interpretation, legal reasoning and legal argumentation should aim at enforcement of legal certainty, justice, and truth

An Argumentation-Based Legal Reasoning Approach for DL-Ontology

Ontology is a popular method for knowledge representation in different domains, including the legal domain, and description logics (DL) is commonly used as its description language. To handle reasoning based on inconsistent DL-based legal ontologies, the current paper presents a structured argumentation framework particularly for reasoning in legal contexts on the basis of ASPIC+, and translates the legal ontology into formulas and rules of an argumentation theory. With a particular focus on the design of autonomous vehicles from the perspective of legal AI, we show that using this combined theory of formal argumentation and DL-based legal ontology, acceptable assertions can be obtained based on inconsistent ontologies, and the traditional reasoning tasks of DL ontologies can also be accomplished. In addition, a formal definition of explanations for the result of reasoning is presented.Comment: 16 pages, 1 figur

Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logics

Defeasible reasoning is a simple but efficient rule-based approach to nonmonotonic reasoning. It has powerful implementations and shows promise to be applied in the areas of legal reasoning and the modeling of business rules. This paper establishes significant links between defeasible reasoning and argumentation. In particular, Dung-like argumentation semantics is provided for two key defeasible logics, of which one is ambiguity propagating and the other ambiguity blocking. There are several reasons for the significance of this work: (a) establishing links between formal systems leads to a better understanding and cross-fertilization, in particular our work sheds light on the argumentation-theoretic features of defeasible logic; (b) we provide the first ambiguity blocking Dung-like argumentation system; (c) defeasible reasoning may provide an efficient implementation platform for systems of argumentation; and (d) argumentation-based semantics support a deeper understanding of defeasible reasoning, especially in the context of the intended applications

An Argumentation‐Based Analysis of the Simonshaven Case

In an argumentation approach, legal evidential reasoning is modeled as the construction and attack of “trees of inference” from evidence to conclusions by applying generalizations to evidence or intermediate conclusions. In this paper, an argumentation‐based analysis of the Simonshaven case is given in terms of a logical formalism for argumentation. The formalism combines abstract argumentation frameworks with accounts of the structure of arguments, of the ways they can be attacked and of ways to evaluate conflicting arguments. The purpose of this paper is not to demonstrate or argue that the argumentation approach to modeling legal evidential reasoning is feasible or even preferable but to have a fully worked‐out example that can be used in the comparison with alternative Bayesian or scenario‐based analyses

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

Technical Report on the Learning of Case Relevance in Case-Based Reasoning with Abstract Argumentation

Case-based reasoning is known to play an important role in several legal settings. In this paper we focus on a recent approach to case-based reasoning, supported by an instantiation of abstract argumentation whereby arguments represent cases and attack between arguments results from outcome disagreement between cases and a notion of relevance. In this context, relevance is connected to a form of specificity among cases. We explore how relevance can be learnt automatically in practice with the help of decision trees, and explore the combination of case-based reasoning with abstract argumentation (AA-CBR) and learning of case relevance for prediction in legal settings. Specifically, we show that, for two legal datasets, AA-CBR and decision-tree-based learning of case relevance perform competitively in comparison with decision trees. We also show that AA-CBR with decision-tree-based learning of case relevance results in a more compact representation than their decision tree counterparts, which could be beneficial for obtaining cognitively tractable explanations