A.R. Lodder

Hard cases: a procedural approach

Much work on legal knowledge systems treats legal reasoning as arguments that lead from a description of the law and the facts of a case, to the legal conclusion for the case. The reasoning steps of the inference engine parallel the logical steps by means of which the legal conclusion is derived from the factual and legal premises. In short, the relation between the input and the output of a legal inference engine is a logical one. The truth of the conclusion only depends on the premises, and is independent of the argument that leads to the conclusion.This paper opposes the logical approach, and defends a procedural approach to legal reasoning. Legal conclusions are not true or false independent of the reasoning process that ended in these conclusions. In critical cases this reasoning process consists of an adversarial procedure in which several parties are involved. The course of the argument determines whether the conclusion is true or false. The phenomenon of hard cases is used to demonstrate this essential procedural nature of legal reasoning.Dialogical Reason Based Logic offers a framework that makes it possible to model legal dialogues. We use Dialogical Reason Based Logic to specify hard cases in dialogical terms. Moreover, we analyse an actual Dutch hard case in terms of Dialogical Reason Based Logic, to demonstrate both the possibilities and the shortcomings of this approach.It turns out that there is no one set of rational dialogue rules. There are many concurring sets of rules that govern particular types of dialogues. The rules for legal procedures are as much part of the law as the more substantial rules. As a consequence, it is not possible to offer an universal set of dialogue rules. Dialogical Reason Based Logic rather provides a framework which can be filled with dialogue rules that determine which dialogues are valid and which ones are invalid.

Enhanced dispute resolution through the use of information technology

Alternative dispute resolution has now supplanted litigation as the principal method of dispute resolution. This overview of dispute resolution addresses practical developments in areas such as family law, plea bargaining, industrial relations and torts. The authors elaborate on the necessary legal safeguards that should be taken into account when developing technology-enhanced dispute resolution and explore a wide range of potential applications for new information technologies in dispute resolution.

Integrating artificial intelligence, argumentation and game theory to develop an online dispute resolution environment

Current research in developing negotiation support systems focuses upon argumentation, artificial intelligence and game theory. These techniques are rarely used in tandem. We argue that truly intelligent negotiation support systems require the integration of such techniques. We integrate the argumentation techniques of Lodder and the combined artificial intelligence/game theory approach of Bellucci and Zeleznikow to develop an online negotiation support environment.

DiaLaw: a dialogical framework for modeling legal reasoning

This paper gives a formal elaboration of the theory of legal reasoning and argumentation that was described in Hage et al. [1994]. Legal reasoning is considered to be procedural, and the way this procedure is modeled is a two person dialogue. Basic elements of this two person dialogue are defined, such as moves, and rules are formulated that describe how dialogues run.

The Third Party and Beyond. An Analysis of the Different Parties, in particular The Fifth, Involved in Online Dispute Resolution.

In a society that virtualises, with most of the current youth being online substantial parts of the day, to say that in the not so far future ODR will handle a large part of the disputes is not a daring prophecy. The relations between the various parties involved in ODR are more diverse and complicated than offline, both practically and legally. This article provides an analysis that stretches further than the two disputing parties and the Third Party. Several scenarios of the relationships between the various parties are analysed. One party is not human, the Fourth Party, commonly used to denote technology. In this paper it is argued that the concept of a Fifth Party as the provider of the technology is needed to understand all possible legal and practical relations.

Logical tools for legal argument: a practical assessment in the domain of tort

In recent years, impressive progress has been made in the development of logical tools for the modeling of legal argument. The focus has been primarily on the technical development of these tools, and only in the second place on their practical adequacy for modeling legal argument. Presently a convergence of opinions on the necessary logical tools takes shape, and a systematic practical assessment of the logical tools becomes essential. It has to be shown that the newly developed logical tools improve the logical modeling of legal argument. In this paper we analyze aspects of informal legal arguments as they actually occur in handbooks and cases on Dutch tort law, and show the connections with the modern logical tools. Proceedings of the sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM, New York, pp. 243-249.

Retrieval of Case Law to Provide Layman with Information about Liability: Preliminary Results of the BEST-Project

This paper describes the experiments carried out in the context of the BEST-project, an interdisciplinary project with researchers from the Law faculty and the AI department of the VU University Amsterdam. The aim of the project is to provide laymen with information about their legal position in a liability case, based on retrieved case law. The process basically comes down to (1) analyzing the input of a layman in terms of a layman ontology, (2) mapping this ontology to a legal ontology, (3) retrieve relevant case law based, and finally (4) present the results in a comprehensible way to the layman. This paper describes the experiments undertaken regarding step 4, and in particular step 3.

A dialogue game for legal arguments

Abstract In this paper it is argued that legal reasoning should be analysed as dialogue games, rather than as logical proofs. This argument is complemented by a set of dialogue rules which define these dialogue games, and an extended example in which the working of (part of) these rules is illustrated.

DIRECTIVE 2000/31/EC ON CERTAIN LEGAL ASPECTS OF INFORMATION SOCIETY SERVICES, IN PARTICULAR ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, IN THE INTERNAL MARKET

2 DIRECTIVE 2000/31/EC ON CERTAIN LEGAL ASPECTS OF INFORMATION SOCIETY SERVICES, IN PARTICULAR ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, IN THE INTERNAL MARKET Arno R. Lodder 2.

Ten Commandments of Internet Law revisited: basic principles for Internet Lawyers

Internet Lawyers are specialized in issues on the intersection of Law and the Internet. The connection between knowledge of the law and understanding of the Internet is one of constant interaction. Scholars can approach Internet Law basically from two angles. First, the classic legal approach is to start with the legal norm, and see whether Internet phenomena are covered by existing norms, either applied straightforwardly or after interpretation. If no existing norm can be applied, the situation can be left unregulated or if desirable new norms can be designed. Second, the Internet can be taken as a starting point, so to think about possible norms without considering the existing normative framework. This approach can lead to new, refreshing insights. Both approaches have their merits. This paper introduces a set of principles for all Internet Lawyers a set of principles, called the Ten Commandments of Internet Law. Also, an empirical evaluation performed by a group of 43 Internet Law students used to improve the initial set is discussed. The set proposed in the end is not, however, considered to be the definite collection of principles for Internet lawyers. Rather the Ten Commandments should be considered a dynamic set in which commandments can be refined, added or deleted.