Argumentação computacional estruturada como método de inferência para disputas em ordenamentos jurídicos positivos
Abstract
Computational Argumentation has been applied successfully over le- gal disputes, especialy in consuetudinary law (case-based). Aiming the exten- sion of this approach to other legal systems -such as positive law- it is necessary to distinguish the backup of arguments based on past cases from the guarantees of the arguments based on positive laws. In this paper, the expressiveness of the frameworks for structured argumentation ASPIC+ and DeLP are compared, in order to represent such problems of legal disputes in positive law systems. The results show that such extension is feasible, although the addition of new constraints reaches the limits of the mentioned frameworks expressiveness.
Keywords:
structured computational argumentation , legal argumentation
References
Atienza, M. (2013). Curso de argumentación jurı́dica. Curso de argumentación jurı́dica.
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., and Giacomin, M. (2011). An introduction to argumentation semantics. The knowledge engineering review, 26(4):365–410.
Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (2009). Argumentation in legal reasoning. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, pages 363–382. Springer.
Bench-Capon, T. J. (2002). Representation of case law as an argumentation framework. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Proceedings of Jurix, pages 103–112.
Bobbio, N. and Bovero, M. (2001). Norberto. teoria da norma jurı́dica. Tradução de Ariani Bueno Sudatti e Fernando Pavan Baptista, 5.
Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial intelligence, 77(2):321–357.
Garcı́a, A. J. and Simari, G. R. (2014). Defeasible logic programming: Delp-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers. Argument & Computation, 5(1):63– 88.
Gorogiannis, N. and Hunter, A. (2011). Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence, 175(9-10):1479– 1497.
Lam, H.-P., Governatori, G., and Riveret, R. (2016). On aspic+ and defeasible logic. In COMMA, pages 359–370.
Modgil, S. and Prakken, H. (2014). The aspic+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument & Computation, 5(1):31–62.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. In Logical models of legal argumentation, pages 175–211.
Saint-Dizier, P. (2018). A Knowledge-Based Approach to Warrant Induction (regular paper). In International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2018).
Snaith, M. and Reed, C. (2012). Toast: online aspic+ implementation. In Verheij, B., Szeider, S. Woltran, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012)), pages 509–510.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press.
Baroni, P., Caminada, M., and Giacomin, M. (2011). An introduction to argumentation semantics. The knowledge engineering review, 26(4):365–410.
Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., and Sartor, G. (2009). Argumentation in legal reasoning. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, pages 363–382. Springer.
Bench-Capon, T. J. (2002). Representation of case law as an argumentation framework. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Proceedings of Jurix, pages 103–112.
Bobbio, N. and Bovero, M. (2001). Norberto. teoria da norma jurı́dica. Tradução de Ariani Bueno Sudatti e Fernando Pavan Baptista, 5.
Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial intelligence, 77(2):321–357.
Garcı́a, A. J. and Simari, G. R. (2014). Defeasible logic programming: Delp-servers, contextual queries, and explanations for answers. Argument & Computation, 5(1):63– 88.
Gorogiannis, N. and Hunter, A. (2011). Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artificial Intelligence, 175(9-10):1479– 1497.
Lam, H.-P., Governatori, G., and Riveret, R. (2016). On aspic+ and defeasible logic. In COMMA, pages 359–370.
Modgil, S. and Prakken, H. (2014). The aspic+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument & Computation, 5(1):31–62.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. In Logical models of legal argumentation, pages 175–211.
Saint-Dizier, P. (2018). A Knowledge-Based Approach to Warrant Induction (regular paper). In International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2018).
Snaith, M. and Reed, C. (2012). Toast: online aspic+ implementation. In Verheij, B., Szeider, S. Woltran, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012)), pages 509–510.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press.
Published
2019-10-15
How to Cite
BILL, Felipe; MORVELI-ESPINOZA, M. Mariela; TACLA, César.
Argumentação computacional estruturada como método de inferência para disputas em ordenamentos jurídicos positivos. In: NATIONAL MEETING ON ARTIFICIAL AND COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (ENIAC), 16. , 2019, Salvador.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2019
.
p. 482-492.
ISSN 2763-9061.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/eniac.2019.9308.
