Dispute resolution in legal mediation with quantitative argumentation
Mediation is often treated as an extension of negotiation, without taking into account the unique role that norms and facts play in legal mediation. Additionally, current approaches for updating argument acceptability in response to changing variables frequently require the introduction of new arguments or the removal of existing ones, which can be inefficient and cumbersome in decision-making processes within legal disputes. In this paper, our contribution is two-fold. First, we introduce a QuAM (Quantitative Argumentation Mediate) framework, which integrates the parties' knowledge and the mediator's knowledge, including facts and legal norms, when determining the acceptability of a mediation goal. Second, we develop a new formalism to model the relationship between the acceptability of a goal argument and the values assigned to a variable associated with the argument. We use a real-world legal mediation as a running example to illustrate our approach.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Decision MakingSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Corpus Resources for Dispute Mediation Discourse
Dispute mediation is a growing activity in the resolution of conflicts, and more and more research emerge to enhance and better understand this (until recently) understudied practice. Corpus analyses are necessary to stu…
Dispute Resolution Using Argumentation-Based Mediation
Mediation is a process, in which both parties agree to resolve their dispute by negotiating over alternative solutions presented by a mediator. In order to construct such solutions, mediation brings more information and …
LLMediator: GPT-4 Assisted Online Dispute Resolution
In this article, we introduce LLMediator, an experimental platform designed to enhance online dispute resolution (ODR) by utilizing capabilities of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4. In the cont…
Constraints on the search space of argumentation
Drawing from research on computational models of argumentation (particularly the Carneades Argumentation System), we explore the graphical representation of arguments in a dispute; then, comparing two different tradition…
A Korean Legal Judgment Prediction Dataset for Insurance Disputes
This paper introduces a Korean legal judgment prediction (LJP) dataset for insurance disputes. Successful LJP models on insurance disputes can benefit insurance companies and their customers. It can save both sides' time…
Sentence