法律解释中的道义可推翻推理:模拟解释论证的两种选择

Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law Pub Date : 2015-06-08 DOI:10.1145/2746090.2746100

A. Rotolo, Guido Governatori, G. Sartor

{"title":"法律解释中的道义可推翻推理:模拟解释论证的两种选择","authors":"A. Rotolo, Guido Governatori, G. Sartor","doi":"10.1145/2746090.2746100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper offers a new logical machinery for reasoning about interpretive canons. We identify some options for modelling reasoning about interpretations and show that interpretative argumentation has a distinctive structure where the claim that a legal text ought or may be interpreted in a certain way can be supported or attacked by arguments, whose conflicts may have to be assessed according to further arguments.","PeriodicalId":309125,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"35","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation: two options for modelling interpretive arguments\",\"authors\":\"A. Rotolo, Guido Governatori, G. Sartor\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2746090.2746100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper offers a new logical machinery for reasoning about interpretive canons. We identify some options for modelling reasoning about interpretations and show that interpretative argumentation has a distinctive structure where the claim that a legal text ought or may be interpreted in a certain way can be supported or attacked by arguments, whose conflicts may have to be assessed according to further arguments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":309125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"35\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2746090.2746100\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2746090.2746100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 35

摘要

本文提供了一种新的逻辑机制，用于解释经典的推理。我们确定了一些关于解释的建模推理的选项，并表明解释性论证具有独特的结构，其中法律文本应该或可能以某种方式解释的主张可以得到论证的支持或攻击，其冲突可能必须根据进一步的论证来评估。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation: two options for modelling interpretive arguments

This paper offers a new logical machinery for reasoning about interpretive canons. We identify some options for modelling reasoning about interpretations and show that interpretative argumentation has a distinctive structure where the claim that a legal text ought or may be interpreted in a certain way can be supported or attacked by arguments, whose conflicts may have to be assessed according to further arguments.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

自引率

0.00%

发文量