Argumentation is currently an important research topic in artificial intelligence. Argumentation is a form of reasoning that makes explicit the reasons for the conclusions that are drawn and how conflicts between reasons are resolved. This provides a natural mechanism to handle inconsistent and uncertain information, to explain the results of the reasoning process to humans and to resolve conflicts of opinion between intelligent agents. A well-known unifying framework for argumentation is Dung's abstract argumentation. It provides a very elegant way to model the dialectical interaction between abstract arguments given their attack relations, but it says nothing about the structure of arguments or the nature of their attack relations. Much work on these more concrete aspects of argumentation exists but a unifying framework for structured argumentation was long lacking. In this talk I will give an overview of recent work on the ASPCIC+ framework for structured argumentation, which aims to be such a unifying framework. Among the topics to be discussed are closure and consistency properties of argumentation systems and the need to model dynamic aspects of argumentation in terms of structured instead of abstract argumentation.