The present article offers an overview of the set-up of our research project about the automation of causal reasoning for legal analysis. Firstly, we formulate an argument against the undermined role of causation in the view of some legal theoretical schools. Secondly, we present the most relevant approaches to the problem and we justify our choice of Hart and Honore"s account as a jurisprudential guideline throughout our research. Thirdly, we select Pearl's inferential framework as a computational support for counterfactual reasoning. Finally, we point out the problems we are currently dealing with, in an attempt at merging Hart and Honore's qualitative account of causation and Pearl's formal theory of causality.
展开▼
