Two Methods for Representing Judicial Reasoning in the Framework of Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14220%2F11%3A00054776" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14220/11:00054776 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Two Methods for Representing Judicial Reasoning in the Framework of Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

We attempt to present and compare two methods for representing cases in constraint satisfaction networks. The tension between top-down and bottom-up strategy as regards construction of models of reasoning has long tradition in the literature on AI. The same distinction applies to representations of legal argumentation. Our proposal compares the application of top-down and bottom-up strategy to representation of a chosen judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in constraint satisfaction networks. The first (top-down) approach is inspired by systems of defeasible logic and argumentation frameworks. The second approach makes use of bottom-up strategy and is more firmly grounded in the text of the court?s decision. The two methods lead to very similar results and yield interesting conclusions concerning the structure of the CJEU reasoning.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Two Methods for Representing Judicial Reasoning in the Framework of Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction

Popis výsledku anglicky

We attempt to present and compare two methods for representing cases in constraint satisfaction networks. The tension between top-down and bottom-up strategy as regards construction of models of reasoning has long tradition in the literature on AI. The same distinction applies to representations of legal argumentation. Our proposal compares the application of top-down and bottom-up strategy to representation of a chosen judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in constraint satisfaction networks. The first (top-down) approach is inspired by systems of defeasible logic and argumentation frameworks. The second approach makes use of bottom-up strategy and is more firmly grounded in the text of the court?s decision. The two methods lead to very similar results and yield interesting conclusions concerning the structure of the CJEU reasoning.

Druh

D - Stať ve sborníku

CEP obor

AG - Právní vědy

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2011

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název statě ve sborníku

Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2011

ISBN

978-1-60750-980-6

ISSN

0922-6389

e-ISSN

—

Počet stran výsledku

2

Strana od-do

165-166

Název nakladatele

IOS Press

Místo vydání

Amsterdam

Místo konání akce

Vienna

Datum konání akce

1. 1. 2011

Typ akce podle státní příslušnosti

WRD - Celosvětová akce

Kód UT WoS článku

—