E. Carlos, D. Alchourron, and . Makinson, Hierarchies of regulations and their logic, New studies in deontic logic, pp.125-148, 1981.

L. Amgoud, Postulates for logic-based argumentation systems, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol.55, issue.9, pp.2028-2048, 2014.
DOI : 10.1016/j.ijar.2013.10.004
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01123709

L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol, Integrating preference orderings into argumentbased reasoning, Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning, First International Joint Conference on Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning ECSQARU-FAPR'97 Proceedings, volume 1244 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp.159-170, 1997.
DOI : 10.1007/bfb0035620

M. Araszkiewicz and T. Zurek, Comprehensive framework embracing the complexity of statutory interpretation In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems - JURIX 2015: The Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference, pp.145-148, 2015.

M. Araszkiewicz and T. Zurek, Interpreting agents. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems -JURIX 2016: The Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference, pp.13-22, 2016.

K. D. Ashley, Modeling legal argument -reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning, 1990.
DOI : 10.1016/0020-7373(91)90011-u

K. D. Ashley, Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol.34, issue.6, pp.753-796, 1991.
DOI : 10.1016/0020-7373(91)90011-U

J. M. Trevor, Bench-Capon. The missing link revisited: The role of teleology in representing legal argument, Artif. Intell. Law, vol.10, issue.1-3, pp.79-94, 2002.

J. M. Trevor and . Bench-capon, Value-based argumentation frameworks, 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp.443-454, 2002.

J. M. Trevor, H. Bench-capon, G. Prakken, and . Sartor, Argumentation in Legal Reasoning, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, 2010.

F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. Walton, Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalisations, Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol.11, issue.2/3, pp.125-165, 2003.
DOI : 10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a

G. Boella, G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, and L. W. Van-der-torre, Lex Minus Dixit Quam Voluit, Lex Magis Dixit Quam Voluit: A Formal Study on Legal Compliance and Interpretation, AICOL-I/IVR-XXIV and AICOL-II/JURIX 2009 Revised Selected Papers, pp.162-183, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/BF00118477
URL : http://www.nicta.com.au/pub?doc=3811

G. Boella, G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, and L. W. Van-der-torre, A logical understanding of legal interpretation, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 2010.

G. Brewka, Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning, Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.1043-1048, 1989.

G. Brewka and T. Eiter, Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs, Artificial Intelligence, vol.109, issue.1-2, pp.297-356, 1999.
DOI : 10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00015-6
URL : https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-3702(99)00015-6

C. Cayrol and M. , Graduality in argumentation, J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), vol.23, pp.245-297, 2005.

C. Da, C. Pereira, A. Tettamanzi, B. Liao, A. Malerba et al., Combining fuzzy logic and formal argumentation for legal interpretation, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2017, 2017.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01672343

C. Da, C. Pereira, A. G. Tettamanzi, and S. Villata, Changing one's mind: Erase or rewind? possibilistic belief revision with fuzzy argumentation based on trust, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'11), pp.164-171, 2011.

D. Anthony and . Amato, Legal uncertainty, California Law Review, vol.71, issue.1, pp.1-55, 1983.

D. Phan-minh, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artif. Intell, vol.77, issue.2, pp.321-358, 1995.

D. Phan-minh, An axiomatic analysis of structured argumentation with priorities, Artif. Intell, vol.231, pp.107-150, 2016.

E. Paul, A. Dunne, P. Hunter, S. Mcburney, M. Parsons et al., Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results, Artif. Intell, vol.175, issue.2, pp.457-486, 2011.

D. M. Gabbay, Equational approach to argumentation networks, Argument & Computation, vol.93, issue.2, pp.87-142, 2012.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2009.02.001
URL : http://orbilu.uni.lu/bitstream/10993/26103/1/file.pdf

F. Thomas and . Gordon, The pleadings game, Artif. Intell. Law, vol.2, issue.4, pp.239-292, 1993.

F. Thomas, D. Gordon, and . Walton, Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp.137-146, 2009.

D. Grossi and S. Modgil, On the graded acceptability of arguments, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.868-874, 2015.

J. Hage, Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic, 1997.

J. Hansen, Prioritized conditional imperatives: problems and a new proposal, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol.60, issue.1, pp.11-35, 2008.
DOI : 10.1080/11663081.1997.10510900
URL : http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2007/914/pdf/07122.HansenJoerg.Paper.914.pdf

L. A. Herbert and . Hart, The Concept of Law, 1994.

P. Heck, Begriffsbildung und Interessensjurisprudenz, 1932.

J. Janssen, M. D. Cock, and D. Vermeir, Fuzzy argumentation frameworks, Procedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, pp.513-520, 2008.

C. Antonis, F. Kakas, P. Toni, and . Mancarella, Argumentation for propositional logic and nonmonotonic reasoning, Proceedings of the 29th Italian Conference on Computational Logic CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp.272-286, 2014.

G. Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, 1987.
DOI : 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001

G. Lakoff and M. Jonhson, Metaphors We Live By, 1980.
DOI : 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001

B. Liao, N. Oren, L. Van-der-torre, and S. Villata, Prioritized norms and defaults in formal argumentation, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Deontic Logic and Normative Systems (DEON2016), pp.139-154, 2016.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01332209

D. Liebwald, Law???s Capacity for Vagueness, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de S??miotique juridique, vol.26, issue.2, pp.391-423, 2013.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-7091-3789-5

D. Makinson and L. Van-der-torre, Input/Output Logics, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol.13, issue.4, pp.383-408, 2000.
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-49545-2_7

A. Malerba, A. Rotolo, and G. Governatori, Interpretation across legal systems, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems -JURIX 2016: The Twenty- Ninth Annual Conference, pp.83-92, 2016.

S. Modgil and H. Prakken, A general account of argumentation with preferences, Artificial Intelligence, vol.195, pp.361-397, 2013.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.008

S. Modgil and H. Prakken, framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial, Argument & Computation, vol.5, issue.1, pp.31-62, 2014.
DOI : 10.1080/19462166.2012.661766

G. Pigozzi and L. Van-der-torre, Arguing about constitutive and regulative norms, Journal of applied nonclassical logics

H. Prakken, A logical framework for modelling legal argument, Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Artificial intelligence and law , ICAIL '93, pp.1-9, 1993.
DOI : 10.1145/158976.158977

H. Prakken, An exercise in formalising teleological case-based reasoning, Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol.10, issue.1/3, pp.113-133, 2002.
DOI : 10.1023/A:1019536206548

H. Prakken and G. Sartor, A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning, Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol.53, issue.2, pp.331-368, 1996.
DOI : 10.1007/BF00118496

H. Prakken and G. Sartor, Formalising arguments about norms
DOI : 10.1145/1276318.1276338

A. Rotolo, G. Governatori, and G. Sartor, Deontic defeasible reasoning in legal interpretation, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '15, pp.99-108, 2015.
DOI : 10.1145/2746090.2746100

G. Sartor, Legal reasoning: A cognitive approach to the law, volume 5 of A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence, 2005.

T. Schaub and K. Wang, A comparative study of logic programs with preference, Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.597-602, 2001.

B. Schweizer and A. Sklar, Statistical metric spaces, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol.10, issue.1, pp.313-334, 1960.
DOI : 10.2140/pjm.1960.10.313

B. Schweizer and A. Sklar, Probabilistic metric spaces. North Holland series in probability and applied mathematics, 1983.

B. David, E. L. Skalak, and . Rissland, Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining, Artif. Intell. Law, vol.1, pp.3-44, 1992.

N. Tamani and M. Croitoru, A quantitative preference-based structured argumentation system for decision support, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pp.1408-1415, 2014.
DOI : 10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2014.6891601
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-01089588

S. Colombo-tosatto, P. Kelsen, Q. Ma, G. Kharbili, L. W. Governatori et al., Algorithms for tractable compliance problems, Frontiers of Computer Science, vol.14, issue.2, pp.55-74, 2015.
DOI : 10.1007/s10796-009-9179-7

A. Tversky, Features of similarity., Psychological Review, vol.84, issue.4, pp.327-352, 1977.
DOI : 10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327

W. N. Leendert, S. Van-der-torre, and . Villata, An aspic-based legal argumentation framework for deontic reasoning, Computational Models of Argument -Proceedings of COMMA 2014, Atholl Palace Hotel, pp.421-432, 2014.

W. Vanpaemel, G. Storms, and B. Ons, A varying abstraction model for categorization, Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp.2277-2282, 2005.
DOI : 10.3758/pbr.15.4.732
URL : https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2FPBR.15.4.732.pdf

B. Verheij, Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic, Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol.11, issue.2/3, pp.167-195, 2003.
DOI : 10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046008.49443.36
URL : http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications/pdf/ai&l2003.pdf

H. Yoshino, The systematization of legal meta-inference, Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Artificial intelligence and law , ICAIL '95, pp.266-275, 1995.
DOI : 10.1145/222092.222257

J. You, X. Wang, and L. Yuan, Nonmonotonic reasoning as prioritized argumentation, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng, vol.13, issue.6, pp.968-979, 2001.

A. P. Young, S. Modgil, and O. Rodrigues, Prioritised default logic as rational argumentation, Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, pp.626-634, 2016.

A. Lotfi and . Zadeh, Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, pp.338-353, 1965.

T. Zurek and M. Araszkiewicz, Modeling teleological interpretation, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL '13, pp.160-168, 2013.
DOI : 10.1145/2514601.2514619