The current state of the art in the study legal argumentation may be characterized by the applicability of a great variety of concepts, distinctions, frameworks and methods which have been employed in dealing with a rich phenomenon of legal argumentation. Although many of these diverse tools are well-developed, in our opinion insufficient attention has been paid to the meta-level discussion between the representatives of various methodological traditions, including, in particular, the legal-theoretical, the philosophical and the logical perspective, as well as the point of view of computer science with focus on AI research.
The aim of the workshop is to provide space for exchange of methodological ideas concerning the research on legal argumentation from three perspectives: AI and Law, argumentation theory and legal theory. There is strong need for cooperation and mutual inspiration between these three domains of research in order to develop more effective, accurate and scientifically adequate theories and models of legal argumentation. Thorough discussion of scientific aims and adopted methodologies is needed in this field. This may lead to establishing of interdisciplinary research projects related to legal argumentation. The organizers intend to publish post-proceedings in a prestigious journal. The installation for submission of papers will be established soon.
The participants of the first MET-ARG workshop are welcome and encouraged to take the opportunity of participating in the 14th Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA) workshop (the registration for MET-ARG allows to participate in 14th CMNA free of charge; both workshops will be organised on the same day). MET-ARG participants might be particularly interested in the fact that one of the key topics of the CMNA meetings is dedicated to methods of studying arguments in the natural language communication — what is a crucial aspect of the research on legal argumentation as well. Organised since 2001 by Floriana Grasso (University of Liverpool, UK), Nancy Green (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, US) and Chris Reed (University of Dundee, UK), the CMNA workshops are widely recognized as one of the most significant and influential meetings focused on natural argumentation and argument technology. The former workshops took place e.g. in Hyderabad (India), Lisbon (Portugal), Pasadena (USA), Patras (Greece), and San Francisco (USA) (for more details see http://www.cmna.info/).
The scope of the workshop may be defined with regard to the following dimensions:
- Subject-matter – research goals – methods: legal argumentation as a specific subject matter of inquiry which requires specific research goals and methods together with a thorough discussion of bridging gaps between various traditions, perspectives and methodological frameworks which are currently applied in the study of legal argumentation
- Cross-disciplinary approach. Which (if any) methodological ideas, concepts and distinctions specific for each of three disciplines (AI & Law, philosophy of argument and legal theory) may turn out to be instructive/inspiring for the others?
- Top-down and bottom up approaches. Should legal argumentation be analyzed from the point of view of “first principles” approach or should it begin with concrete real-life examples? Is there a middle ground between the two?
- Formal and computational vs. informal models. How can logical tools contribute to analysis of actual legal argumentation? Are semi-formal and informal approaches more fruitful?
- From law through argumentation theory to AI and back again. How do presumptions of any of these fields determine the scientific method and the obtained results?
- Descriptive and normative models. How do lawyers argue? How should they?
- Discussion of (in)adequacy of methodological assumptions of existing approaches
- The applicability of formal and computational models of legal reasoning
- Bridging gaps between various methods (models, frameworks) employed in the study of legal argumentation
- Scope and limits of applying tools for representation of formal argumentation models
- Problems and challenges of abstract and structured legal argumentation
- Methodology for research on argumentation schemes in legal reasoning
- Contrasting goals of and constraints on differing methodological approaches
- Arguing about rules, cases, evidence. Does the method differ in research on legal argumentation in different domains?
- Methods of legal argumentation mining
- Heuristics, biases and fallacies in legal argumentation and their role in research on argumentation
- Theories and metatheories of legal argumentation
- The language of legal argumentation
The peer-reviewed papers from 1st MET-ARG are published as a special issue of the journal Informal Logic (Michał Araszkiewicz, Tomasz Żurek, Eds.; vol. 3, 2016; University of Windsor, Canada).
- Mark Aakhus, Rutgers University, US
- Kevin Ashley, University of Pittsburgh, US
- Katarzyna Budzynska, Polish Academy of Science, Poland & University of Dundee, UK
- Marcello Ceci, University College Cork, Ireland
- Giovanni Damele, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
- Luis Duarte d’Almeida, University of Edinburgh, UK
- Tomasz Gizbert-Studnicki, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland
- Thomas F. Gordon, Fraunhofer FOKUS, Germany
- Floriana Grasso, University of Liverpool, UK
- Mathilde Janier, University of Dundee, UK
- Andrzej Kisielewicz, University of Wrocław, Poland
- Fabrizio Macagno, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
- Chris Reed, University of Dundee, UK
- Mariusz Urbański, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland
- Bart Verheij, University of Groningen, Netherlands
- Douglas Walton, University of Windsor, Canada
- Kevin Ashley, Automatically Extracting Arguments from Legal Texts
- Giovanni Damele, The ‘a simili’ argument as a rhetorical device
- Luis Duarte d’Almeida, The merits of working from case law: an illustration
- Thomas F. Gordon, Software Engineering for Research on Legal Argumentation
- Mathilde Janier, Mark Aakhus, Katarzyna Budzynska & Chris Reed, Games mediators play: empirical methods for deriving dialogue structure
- Andrzej Kisielewicz, What makes formal methods applicable in argumentation, AI and law
- Fabrizio Macagno, Presumptive and systematic reasoning in defamation cases
- Douglas Walton, A Middle Way between Formal Models and Natural Language Legal Argumentation
Panel session “Force of Legal Arguments: Contemporary Perspectives and Methods“
The presentation at the regular session will be followed by a panel discussion to which all the workshop’s participants will be invited. An introduction will be provided by three short statements given by the researchers representing various areas and approaches to legal argumentation:
Early registration fee
until 17 November
Late registration fee
after 17 November
|60 EUR tbc (230 PLN)||110 EUR tbc (450 PLN)|
IMPORTANT: The registration fee will also cover the participation in the CMNA workshop (to be held on the same day as the MET-ARG workshop, in the same room but different sessions).
- Michał Araszkiewicz (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland)
- Kevin Ashley (University of Pittsburgh, USA)
- Katarzyna Budzynska (Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland & University of Dundee, UK)
- Christian Dahlman (University of Lund, Sweden)
- Giovanni Damele (Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal)
- Luis Duarte d’Almeida (University of Edinburgh, UK)
- Eveline Feteris (University of Amsterdam, Netherlands)
- Thomas F. Gordon (Fraunhofer FOKUS, Germany)
- Marcin Koszowy (University of Bialystok, Poland)
- Fabrizio Macagno (Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal)
- Marcin Selinger (University of Wrocław, Poland)
- Mariusz Urbański (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland)
- Douglas Walton (University of Windsor, Canada)
- Tomasz Żurek (Marie Curie Skłodowska University, Lublin, Poland)