人工智能举证责任

2005 8 42 [ ]Henry Prakken /  [ ]  Henry Prakken 1985 1988 1996 1997 Kluwer H.Jaap van den Herik et al. (eds), Legal Knowledge Based Systems, JURIX 1999, The Twelfth Conference, Nijmegen: GNI, 1999, p. 85-97.  2005 8 43 defeasibility Hart 1949 Baker 1977 MacCormick 1995 Gordon 1994 Loui 1995 Sartor 1995 MacKenzie MacKenzie 1979 Loui 1998 Vreeswijk 1995 logics for defeasible argumentation MacKenzie Hage 1994 Gordon 1994 Bench-Capon 1998 Lodder 1999 Gordon1994 legal argumentation , legal argument argumentation defeasibility , 1949 defeat defeat Donald Nute defeasible logic Henry Prakken 2005 8 44 Freeman Farley 1996 Gordon Karacapilidis (1997 ) Freeman Farley Gordon Karacapilidis 1997 Prakken Sartor 1998 Prakken Vreeswijk 2000 Mackenzie Prakken Vreeswijk(2000 ) Sartor 1995 2005 8 45 counterarguments (attack) (defeat) (defeat) (strictly defeat) (the justified argument) (the overruled argument) (the defensible argument) 2005 8 46 Prakken 1997 Prakken Sartor(1998 ) (p) 1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 () p1 2 1: 7 2005 8 47 8 9 9 2 1’: 10 11 12 12 6 1’’ 2005 8 48 1’ 1’’ 13 C 14 15 10 11 12 C 2: 16 C 17 18 C 18 13 1’’ 2005 8 49 Prakken Sartor 1996 () Prakken,1997 Sartor 1995 a b e a e b e e   1: (1)  , (2)  , (3)    (4)   (4') ¬ 5, (5)    5  , (6) 2005 8 50 � � � �   4'   1: (7)  , (8)  , (9)    � 5 1 1 1’’: (13)  (14) (15)  (10) (10')  5 (11) 5  5 1 1’’ 5 1’’ 1 2005 8 51 1’’ 2: (16)  (17)   (18)    �   Prakken Sartor 1996 Prakken 1999 5.1   A B B A A B   P O 5.1 [ ] M1,..., Mn,... Mi ( i , i) 1 i P i i O i 2 i P(i > 1) i i 1 3 i O i i 1 AT AT 2005 8 52 P O 5.2 [ ] A AT A AT Prakken Vreeswijk 2000 Prakken Sartor 1996 5.2    P O 2005 8 53 P 5.3 [ ] M1, ..., Mn, ... Mi = ( i, i) i i Mi ( i) 1. i = 1 ( i) = P 2. i > 1 (a) i i ( i)= P (b) ( i) Mi-1 ( i-1) 5.4 [ ] M1, ...,Mn, ... Mi ( i, i) 1. i =  i i =  i 2. ( i) = P (i > 1) i i-1 3. ( i) = O i � � i-1 2005 8 54 Prakken 1997 5.3 Prakken Vreeswijk 2000  A B A  C B  AT A B C B A C B B C 5.3 5.4 5.2 ,      C   Freeman Farley(1996 ) Prakken Sartor1996 2005 8 55 Prakken Sartor 1 2 Gordon Karacapilidis (1997 ) ZENO Freeman Farley ZENO Gordon Karacapilidis Freeman Farley ZENO Freeman Farley 1996 Gordon Karacapilidis 1997 Hage 1994 Bench-Capon 1998 Lodder 1999 Loui,1998 Tom Gordon, Jaap Hage, Ronald Leenes, Arno Lodder 2005 8 56 1. G.P. Baker, ‘Defeasibility and meaning’, in: P.M.S. Hacking & J. Raz (eds.), Law, Morality, and Society. Essays in Honour of H.L.A. Hart, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1977, pp. 26-57. 2. T.J.M. Bench-Capon, ‘Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game’, in: J.C. Hage et al. (eds), Legal Knowledge-Based Systems. JURIX 1998: The Eleventh Conference, Nijmegen: Gerard Noodt Instituut 1998, pp. 5-19. 3. K. Freeman & A.M. Farley, ‘A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning’, in: Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 1996, pp.163-197. 4. T.F. Gordon & N. Karacapilidis, ‘The Zeno argumentation framework’, in: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press 1997, pp. 10-18. 5. T.F. Gordon, ‘The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics’, in: Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2, 1994, pp. 239-292. 6. J.C. Hage, R.E. Leenes, & A.R. Lodder, ‘Hard cases: a procedural approach’, in: Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2, 1994, pp. 113-166. 7. H.L.A. Hart, ‘The ascription of responsibility and rights’, in: Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society, pp. 99-117, 1949. Reprinted in: A.G.N. Flew (ed.), Logic and Language. First Series, Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1951, pp. 145-166. 8. A.R. Lodder, DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999. 9. R.P. Loui, ‘Hart’s critics on defeasible concepts and ascriptivism’, in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York: ACM Press 1995, pp. 21-30. 10. R.P. Loui, ‘Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning’, in: Computational Intelligence, 14, 1998, pp. 1-38. 11. N. MacCormick, ‘Defeasibility in law and logic’, in: Z. Bankowski, I . White, & U. Hahn (eds.), Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Law and Philosophy Library, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995, pp. 99-117. 12. J.D. MacKenzie, ‘Question-begging in non-cumulative sys tems’, in: Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 1979, pp. 117-133. 13. H. Prakken, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study of Defeasible Argumentation in Law. Law and Philosophy Library, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997. 14. H. Prakken, ‘Dialectical proof theory for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities (preliminary report)’, in: Proceedings of the Fourth ModelAge Workshop on Formal Models of Agents, Springer Lecture Notes in AI, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1999. 15. H. Prakken & G. Sartor, ‘A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning’, in: Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 1996, pp. 331-368. 16. H. Prakken & G. Sartor, ‘Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game’, in: Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6, 1998, pp. 231-287. 17. H. Prakken & G.A.W. Vreeswijk, ‘Logical systems for defeasible argumentation’, in: D. Gabbay (ed.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, second edition, Dordrecht: 2005 8 57 Kluwer Academic Publishers, to appear in 2000. 18. G. Sartor, ‘Defeasibility in legal reasoning’, in: Z. Bankowski, I. White, & U. Hahn (eds.), Informatics and the Foundations of Legal Reasoning, Law and Philosophy Library, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995, pp. 119-157. 19. G.A.W. Vreeswijk, ‘The computational value of debate in defeasible reasoning’, in: Argumentation, 9, 1995, pp. 305-341.