In recent years dialectics has become popular in Artificial Intelligence and law. A sub-branch of this field concentrates on the development of dialogue games. Many of these legal dialogue systems are fairly simple, in some respects even too simple. Among the topics dialogue games can improve on, is the division of the burden of proof. In this paper I discuss some legal dialogue games in the light of an actual legal procedure to show the shortcomings of these models. The paper shows what computational dialectics can learn form legal practice.
|Conference||Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law|
|Period||21/05/01 → 25/05/01|
|Other||21-25 May 2001|