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

ŠAVELKA, Jaromír and Michal ARASZKIEWICZ. Two Methods for Representing Judicial Reasoning in the Framework of Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction. In Katie M. Atkinson. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2011. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2011, p. 165-166. ISBN 978-1-60750-980-6.

Basic information

• Original name: Two Methods for Representing Judicial Reasoning in the Framework of Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction
• Authors: ŠAVELKA, Jaromír (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution) and Michal ARASZKIEWICZ (616 Poland).
• Edition: Amsterdam, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2011, p. 165-166, 2 pp. 2011.
• Publisher: IOS Press

Other information

• Original language: English
• Type of outcome: Proceedings paper
• Field of Study: 50500 5.5 Law
• Country of publisher: Austria
• Confidentiality degree: is not subject to a state or trade secret
• Publication form: printed version "print"
• RIV identification code: RIV/00216224:14220/11:00054776
• Organization unit: Faculty of Law
• ISBN: 978-1-60750-980-6
• ISSN: 0922-6389
• UT WoS: 000348845200021
• Keywords in English: coherence constraint satisfaction top-down bottom-up
• Tags: rivok
• Tags: International impact, Reviewed

Abstract

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.