Checking the Validity of Rule-Based Arguments Grounded in Cases: A Computational Approach

One puzzle studied in AI & Law is how arguments, rules and cases are formally connected. Recently a formal theory was proposed formalizing how the validity of arguments based on rules can be grounded in cases. Three kinds of argument validity were distinguished: coherence, presumptive validity and conclusiveness. In this paper the theory is implemented in a Prolog program, used to evaluate a previously developed model of Dutch tort law. We also test the theory and its implementation with a new case study modeling Chinese copyright infringement law. In this way we illustrate that by the use of the implementation the process of modeling becomes more efficient and less error-prone.