A Formal Framework for Combining Legal Reasoning Methods

This paper proposes a novel argumentation-based approach to combine legal-reasoning methods that each solve a subproblem of an overall legal problem. The methods can be of any nature (for instance, logical, case-based or probabilistic), as long as their input-output behaviour can be described at the metalevel with deductive or defeasible rules. The model is formulated in the ASPIC(+) framework, to profit from its metatheory and explanation methods, and to allow for disagreement about how to solve a subproblem. The model is not meant to be directly implementable but to serve as a semantics for architectures and implementations.