Comparing Alternatives in the Law

J.C. Hage

doi:10.1007/s10506-005-6926-z

Comparing Alternatives in the Law

J.C. Hage^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Professional

Abstract

This paper argues the thesis that a particular style of reasoning, qualitative comparative reasoning (qcr), plays a role in at least three areas of legal reasoning that are central in ai and law research, namely legal theory construction, case-based reasoning in the form of case comparison, and legal proof. The paper gives an informal exposition of one particular way to deal with qcr, based on the author’s previous work on reason-based logic (rbl). Then it contains a substantially adapted formalisation of rbl, to make rbl suitable for dealing with qcr. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of related work.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	181-225
Journal	Artificial Intelligence and Law
Volume	12
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-005-6926-z
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2005

Access to Document

10.1007/s10506-005-6926-z

Cite this

@article{ff537bd58ff64cefa06ed9d827ac3846,

title = "Comparing Alternatives in the Law",

abstract = "This paper argues the thesis that a particular style of reasoning, qualitative comparative reasoning (qcr), plays a role in at least three areas of legal reasoning that are central in ai and law research, namely legal theory construction, case-based reasoning in the form of case comparison, and legal proof. The paper gives an informal exposition of one particular way to deal with qcr, based on the author{\textquoteright}s previous work on reason-based logic (rbl). Then it contains a substantially adapted formalisation of rbl, to make rbl suitable for dealing with qcr. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of related work.",

author = "J.C. Hage",

year = "2005",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1007/s10506-005-6926-z",

language = "English",

volume = "12",

pages = "181--225",

journal = "Artificial Intelligence and Law",

issn = "0924-8463",

publisher = "Springer",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing Alternatives in the Law

AU - Hage, J.C.

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - This paper argues the thesis that a particular style of reasoning, qualitative comparative reasoning (qcr), plays a role in at least three areas of legal reasoning that are central in ai and law research, namely legal theory construction, case-based reasoning in the form of case comparison, and legal proof. The paper gives an informal exposition of one particular way to deal with qcr, based on the author’s previous work on reason-based logic (rbl). Then it contains a substantially adapted formalisation of rbl, to make rbl suitable for dealing with qcr. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of related work.

AB - This paper argues the thesis that a particular style of reasoning, qualitative comparative reasoning (qcr), plays a role in at least three areas of legal reasoning that are central in ai and law research, namely legal theory construction, case-based reasoning in the form of case comparison, and legal proof. The paper gives an informal exposition of one particular way to deal with qcr, based on the author’s previous work on reason-based logic (rbl). Then it contains a substantially adapted formalisation of rbl, to make rbl suitable for dealing with qcr. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of related work.

U2 - 10.1007/s10506-005-6926-z

DO - 10.1007/s10506-005-6926-z

M3 - Article

SN - 0924-8463

VL - 12

SP - 181

EP - 225

JO - Artificial Intelligence and Law

JF - Artificial Intelligence and Law

ER -

Comparing Alternatives in the Law

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this