Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 8

Proceedings of the 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Modeling conflicts between legal rules

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2016F272

Citation: Proceedings of the 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 8, pages 393402 ()

Full text

Abstract. The main aim of this work is to formalize the mechanism of resolving conflicts between statutory legal rules with a view to implementing them into a legal advisory system. The model is build on the basis of the ASPIC+ argument modeling framework. The paper presents a discussion and a formal model of the mechanism of conflict recognition as well as models of three different mechanisms of conflict solving and a discussion of the relations between them.


  1. R. Kowalski and F. Toni, “Abstract argumentation,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 4, pp. 275–296, 1996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00118494. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00118494
  2. R. Heller, F. Teeseling, and M. Gulpers, “A knowledge infrastructure for the Dutch Immigration Office,” in The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, L. Aroyo, G. Antoniou, E. Hyvonen, A. Teije, H. Stuckenschmidt, L. Cabral, and T. Tudorache, Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, vol. 6089, pp. 386–390. ISBN 978-3-642-13488-3. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13489-0_29
  3. T. Gordon, “Some problems with PROLOG as a knowledge represen- tation language for legal expert systems,” Yearbook of Law, Computers and Technology, pp. 52–67, 1987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600869.1987.9966253
  4. R. Alexy, “On balancing and subsumption. a structural comparison,” Ratio Juris, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 433–449, Dec. 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0952-1917.2003.00244.x.
  5. T. Zurek, “Model of argument from social importance,” in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2014: The Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, 10-12 December 2014, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-468-8-23 pp. 23–28.
  6. G. Sartor, “A simple computational model for nonmonotonic and adversarial legal reasoning,” in ICAIL ’93: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/158976.159001 pp. 192–201.
  7. F. Gordon, T, “Constructing arguments with a computational model of an argumentation scheme for legal rules: Interpreting legal rules as reasoning policies,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1276318.1276340 pp. 117–121.
  8. D. Nute, “Defeasible logic,” in INAP’01: Proceedings of the Applications of prolog 14th international conference on Web knowledge management and decision support. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36524-913. ISBN 3-540-00680-X pp. 151–169.
  9. H. Prakken and G. Sartor, A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 1996, vol. 1085, pp. 510–524. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48317-915
  10. J. Hage, Studies in Legal Logic. Springer, 2005.
  11. N. Van Der Torre L, W and N. Yao-Huata, Defeasible Deontic Logic. Kluwer, 1997, ch. The Many Faces Of Defeasibility In Defeasible Deontic Logic, pp. 79–122. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8851-5_5
  12. S. Modgil and H. Prakken, “The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial,” Argument and Computation, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 31–62, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2013.869766
  13. B. van Gijzel and H. Prakken, “Relating Carneades with abstract argumentation via the ASPIC + framework for structured argumentation,” Argument & Computation, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 21–47, Mar. 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19462166.2012.661766
  14. M. Hernes and K. Matouk, “Knowledge conflicts in business intelligence systems,” in Proceedings of the 2013 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. P. M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, Ed. IEEE, 2013, pp. pages 1241–1246.
  15. P. M. Dung, “On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 321 – 357, 1995. http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000437029400041X
  16. H. Prakken and G. Sartor, “Formalising arguments about norms,” in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2013: The Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference, December 11-13, 2013, University of Bologna, Italy, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-359-9-121 pp. 121–130.
  17. L. Leszczynski, Zagadnienia teorii stosowania prawa: Issues of theory of application of law. Krakow: Zakamycze, 2001.
  18. J. Stelmach, Kodeks argumentacyjny dla prawnikow. Zakamycze, 2003.
  19. T. Zurek and M. Araszkiewicz, “Modeling teleological interpretation,” in Proceedings of ICAIL 2013. ACM, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2514601.2514619 pp. 160–168. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2514601.2514619
  20. T. Zurek, “Modelling of a’fortiori reasoning,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 10 772–10 779, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.188. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417412004617
  21. T. Zurek, “Instrumental inference in legal expert system,” in Proceedings of JURIX 2011. IOS Press, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-981-3-155 pp. 155–159.
  22. M. Araszkiewicz, “Scientia juris : a missing link in the modelling of statutory reasoning,” in Legal knowledge and information systems: JURIX 2014: the twenty-seventh annual conference, ser. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, R. Hoekstra, Ed. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2014, pp. 1–10. ISBN 978-1-61499-467-1
  23. M. Araszkiewicz and T. Zurek, “Comprehensive framework embracing the complexity of statutory interpretation,” in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2015: The Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference, Braga, Portual, December 10-11, 2015, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-609-5-145 pp. 145–148.
  24. D. Walton, G. Sartor, and F. Macagno, “An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 51–91, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9179-0.
  25. H. Prakken and G. Sartor, “Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities,” Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 25–75, 1997. http://dx.doi.org/0.1080/11663081.1997.10510900
  26. W. W. Vasconcelos, M. J. Kollingbaum, and T. J. Norman, “Normative conflict resolution in multi-agent systems,” Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 124–152, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-008-9070-9
  27. A. García-Camino, P. Noriega, and J. A. Rodríguez-Aguilar, “An algorithm for conflict resolution in regulated compound activities,” in Engineering Societies in the Agents World VII, 7th International Workshop, ESAW 2006. Revised Selected and Invited Papers, G. M. P. O’Hare, A. Ricci, M. J. O’Grady, and O. Dikenelli, Eds., vol. 4457, Springer-Verlag. Dublin, Ireland: Springer-Verlag, September 6-8 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75524-1 11. ISBN ISBN 978-3-540-75522-7 pp. 193–208.
  28. T. Zurek and E. Kruk, “Supporting of legal reasoning for cases which are not strictly regulated by law,” in ICAIL ’09: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1568234.1568263 pp. 220–221.
  29. T. Zurek, “Conflicts in legal knowledge base,” Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 129–145, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10209-011-0006-9