Legal rules and argumentation in a metalogic framework

In this paper we show how to address legal argumentation as a dialectic process using a metalogic defeasible framework. We provide a formal model in which, the argumentation of the parties call be analyzed computationally. Further we argue that the accommodation of legal reasoning by using hierarchical defeasible theories of 171 provides a comprehensive alternative for constructing legally acceptable and meaningful theories of case-adapted jurisprudence with the Purpose of facilitating legal audits and the preparation of appeals to a higher tribunal.