oa Interlegal argumentation in the UK Drill Music decision of Meta’s Oversight Board

References

1. Alexy, Robert
   1989 (1978) A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Alexy, Robert
   2010 (1985) A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Alexy, Robert
   2014 “Formal Principles: Some Replies to Critics.” International Journal of Constitutional Law12 (3):511–524. 10.1093/icon/mou051
   https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mou051 [Google Scholar]
4. Alexy, Robert
   2018 “The Special Case Thesis and the Dual Nature of Law.” Ratio Juris31 (3):254–259. 10.1111/raju.12215
   https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12215 [Google Scholar]
5. Arnardóttir, O. M.
   2016 “Rethinking the Two Margins of Appreciation.” European Constitutional Law Review12 (1):27–53. 10.1017/S1574019616000018
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019616000018 [Google Scholar]
6. Badger, Richard
   2003 “Legal and General: Towards a Genre Analysis of Newspaper Law Reports.” English for Specific Purposes221:249–263. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00020‑0
   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00020-0 [Google Scholar]
7. Bhatia, Vijay K.
   1993 Analysing Genre. Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bhatia, Vijay K.
   2017 Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Practice. Oxon: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bhatia, Vijay K.
   2023 “Legal Genres in Interdiscursive Contexts.” InResearch Handbook on Jurilinguistics, ed. byAnne Wagner and Aleksandra Matulewska, 159–178. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 10.4337/9781802207248.00019
   https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802207248.00019 [Google Scholar]
10. Biber, Elif and Nedim Hogic
    2021 “Inter-Legality and Online States.” InL’era dell’interlegalità, ed. byEdoardo Chiti, Alberto di Martino, and Gianluigi Palombella, 217–237. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Burchardt, Dana
    2023 “Looking Behind the Façade of Monism, Dualism and Pluralism.” KFG Working Paper Series591. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4326862
    [Google Scholar]
12. Carter, Anne
    2024 Proportionality and Facts in Constitutional Adjudication. Oxford: Hart.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Clérico, Laura
    2009 El examen de proporcionalidad en el derecho constitucional. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Da Cruz, Paula Baldini Miranda
    (2020) “Trackers and Trailblazers: Dynamic Interactions and Institutional Design in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” Journal of International Dispute Settlement11 (1): 69-90. 10.1093/jnlids/idaa002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idaa002 [Google Scholar]
15. Douek, Evelyn
    2020 “What Kind of Oversight Board Have You Given Us?”, The University of Chicado Law Review Online Archive. https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2020/05/11/fb-oversight-board-edouek/
    [Google Scholar]
16. Douek, Evelin
    2024 “The Meta Oversight Board and the Empty Promise of Legitimacy”. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology37 (2):373–445
    [Google Scholar]
17. Dworkin, Ronald
    1967 “The Model of Rules”. The University of Chicago Law Review35 (1):14–46. 10.2307/1598947
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1598947 [Google Scholar]
18. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2010 Strategic maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
19. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, and Jean H. M. Wagemans
    2014 Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
20. Encinas, Gabriel
    2022 “Interlegal Balancing: A Concept, Two Contexts, Some Circumstances” Rivista di filosofia del diritto, 11:75–90. 10.4477/104018
    https://doi.org/10.4477/104018 [Google Scholar]
21. Endicott, Timothy
    2015 “Comity among Authorities.” Current Legal Problems, 681:1–26. 10.1093/clp/cuv004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuv004 [Google Scholar]
22. Fairclough, Nicholas
    1992 Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Feteris, Eveline T.
    2008 “Weighing and Balancing in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.” Informal Logic28 (1):20–30. 10.22329/il.v28i1.511
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i1.511 [Google Scholar]
24. Feteris, Evelin T.
    2017 Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑024‑1129‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4 [Google Scholar]
25. Forst, Rainer
    2023 “The Meaning(s) of Solidarity.” InAndrea Sangiovanni, Solidarity: Nature, Grounds and Value, 205–221. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 10.7765/9781526172693.00012
    https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526172693.00012 [Google Scholar]
26. Giner, Diana
    2023 “A repugnant possibility: The construction of the argumentation in the enforcement of annulled arbitral award Commisa v Pemex.” Journal of Argumentation in Context12 (2):211–233. 10.1075/jaic.22004.gin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22004.gin [Google Scholar]
27. Gradoni, Lorenzo
    2021 “Chasing Global Legal Particles: Some Guesswork about the Nature of Meta’s Oversight Board.” EJIL:Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. 30 December 2021. https://www.ejiltalk.org/chasing-global-legal-particles-some-guesswork-about-the-nature-of-metas-oversight-board/
    [Google Scholar]
28. Griffin, Rachel
    2023 “Rethinking rights in social media governance: human rights, ideology and inequality.” European Law Open, 21:30–56. 10.1017/elo.2023.7
    https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2023.7 [Google Scholar]
29. Grimm, Dieter
    2007 “Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence.” University of Toronto Law Journal571:383–397. 10.1353/tlj.2007.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1353/tlj.2007.0014 [Google Scholar]
30. Habermas, Jürgen
    1996 Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, Massachussets: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
31. Hage, Jaap
    2018 “What Is Legal Validity? Lessons from Soft Law.” InLegal Validity and Soft Law, ed. byPauline Westerman, Jaap Hage, Stephan Kirste, and Anne Ruth Mackor, 19–45. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑77522‑7_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77522-7_2 [Google Scholar]
32. Han, Zhengrui, Vijay K. Bhatia and Yunfeng Ge
    2018 “The Structural Format and Rhetorical Variation of Writing Chinese Judicial Opinions: A Genre Analytical Approach.” Pragmatics28 (4):463–487. 10.1075/prag.17013.ge
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17013.ge [Google Scholar]
33. Hass, Binesh
    2021 “The Opaqueness of Rules”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies41 (2):407–430. 10.1093/ojls/gqaa054
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaa054 [Google Scholar]
34. Helfer, Laurence R., and Mary K. Land
    2023 “The Meta’s Oversight Board’s Human Rights Future.” Cardozo Law Review44 (6):2233–2300.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Ihnen Jory, Constanza
    2012 Pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates: instruments for the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation at the second reading of the British Parliament. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
36. Jackson, V. C.
    (2015) Constitutional law in an age of proportionality. Yale Law Journal124 (8): 3094–3197. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43617155
    [Google Scholar]
37. Jessup, Philip C.
    1956 Transnational Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Klabbers, Jan and Gianluigi Palombella
    eds. 2019 The Challenge of Inter-Legality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108609654
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108609654 [Google Scholar]
39. Klonick, Kate
    2020 The Facebook Oversight Board: Creating an Independent Institution to Adjudicate Online Free Expression. The Yale Law Journal1291: 2418–2499.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Kloosterhuis, Harm
    2015 “Institutional Constraints of Topical Strategic Maneuvering in Legal Argumentation. The Case of ‘Insulting’.” InArgument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation, ed. byThomas Bustamante and Christian Dahlman, 67–75. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑16148‑8_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16148-8_5 [Google Scholar]
41. Krisch, Nico
    2010 Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228317.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228317.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
42. Krisch, Nico
    2021 “Framing Entangled Legalities beyond the State.” InEntangled Legalities Beyond the State, ed. byNico Krisch, 1–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108914642.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108914642.002 [Google Scholar]
43. Lafont, Cristina
    2020 Democracy without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Maley, Yon
    1995 “From Adjudication to Mediation: Third Party Discourse in Conflict Resolution.” Journal of Pragmatics231: 93–110. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00030‑I
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00030-I [Google Scholar]
45. Michaels, Ralf
    2017 “Law and Recognition -- Towards a Relational Concept of Law.” InIn Pursuit of Pluralist Jurisprudence, ed. byNicole Roughan and Andrew Halpin, 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316875056.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316875056.005 [Google Scholar]
46. Nickel, Rainer
    2015 “Interlegalidad”. Eunomía: Revista en cultura de la legalidad (8):205–211.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Oliver-Lalana, A. Daniel
    2022 “On the Structure and Stock Issues of Legislative Justification (in Parliamentary Debates).” InExploring the Province of Legislation, ed. byFrancesco Ferraro and Silvia Zorzetto, 57–83. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑87262‑5_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87262-5_4 [Google Scholar]
48. Ortolani, Pietro
    2022 “If You Build it, They Will Come. The DSA “Procedure Before Substance” Approach.” InPutting the Digital Services Act into Practice: Enforcement, Access to Justice, and Global Implications, ed. byJoris van Hoboken, João Pedro Quintais, Naomi Appelman, Ronan Fahy, Ilaria Buri, and Marlene Straub, 151–163. Berlin: Verfassungsbooks.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Palombella, G.
    2019 “Theory, Realities, and Promises of Inter-Legality: A Manifesto.” InThe Challenge of Inter-Legality, ed. byJan Klabbers and Gianluigi Palombella, 363–390. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108609654.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108609654.016 [Google Scholar]
50. Pirker, B.
    2013 Proportionality Analysis and Models of Judicial Review. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Popa, Eugen Octav, and Jean Wagemans
    2021 Stock issues and the structure of argumentative discussions: An integrative analysis. Journal of Pragmatics186129–141. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.021 [Google Scholar]
52. Rasmussen, Kirsten Wølch, and Jan Engberg
    1999 “Genre Analysis of Legal Discourse.” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics221:113–132.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Raz, Joseph
    2009 Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562688.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562688.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
54. Ryngaert, Cedric
    2019 “Jurisdiction”. InConcepts for International Law, ed. byJean d’Aspremont and Sahib Singh, 577–584, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 10.4337/9781783474684.00042
    https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783474684.00042 [Google Scholar]
55. San Martin, Pamela
    2023 “Meta’s Oversight Board. Challenges of Content Moderation on the Internet.” Erasmus Law Review21:124–139. 10.5553/ELR.000253
    https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000253 [Google Scholar]
56. Scarcello, Orlando
    2021 “Proportionality in the PSPP and Weiss Judgments: Comparing Two Conceptions of the Unity of Public Law.” European Journal of Legal Studies13 (21):45–59.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Shany, Y.
    2019 “International Courts as Inter-Legality Hubs.” InThe Challenge of Inter-Legality, ed. ByJan Klabbers, and Gianluigi Palombella, 319–338. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108609654.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108609654.014 [Google Scholar]
58. Sieckmann, J.
    2012 The Logic of Autonomy. Oxford: Hart.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Sieckmann, J.
    2021 “To Balance or Not to Balance: The Quest for the Essence of Rights.” InProportionality, Balancing, and Rights: Robert Alexy’s Theory of Constitutional Rights, ed. byJan Sieckmann, 113–134. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑77321‑2_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77321-2_5 [Google Scholar]
60. Sieckmann, J.
    2022 Autonomie und Menschenrechte. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 10.5771/9783748935223
    https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748935223 [Google Scholar]
61. Steiner, Talya, Andrej Lang, and Mordechai Kremnitzer
    2020 “Comparative and Empirical Insights into Judicial Practice: Towards an Integrative Model of Proportionality”. InProportionality in Action: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives on the Judicial Practice, ed. byMordechai Kremnitzer, Talya Steiner, and Andrej Lang, 542–611. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Da Silva, V. A.
    2023 “Balancing may be everywhere, but the proportionality test is not.” Global Constitutionalism, First View, 1–16. 10.1017/S2045381723000187
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381723000187 [Google Scholar]
63. Swales, John M.
    1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Tamanaha, Brian Z.
    2021 Legal Pluralism Explained: History, Theory, Consequences. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190861551.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190861551.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
65. Tiedeke, Anna Sophia and Martin Fertmann
    2024 “A Love Triangle? Mapping Interactions between International Human Rights Institutions, Meta and Its Oversight Board.” European Journal of International Law, chad062. 10.1093/ejil/chad062
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chad062 [Google Scholar]
66. Van den Berg, Albert
    2024 “Does an Annulled Award Constitute Legal Authority in Investment Arbitration?” ICSID Review — Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad020, 10.1093/icsidreview/siad020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad020 [Google Scholar]
67. Van den Hoven, Paul
    2011 “The Unchangeable Judicial Formats.” Argumentation251:499–511. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9229‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9229-4 [Google Scholar]
68. Vázquez-Orta, Ignacio
    2013 “Authoritative Intervention in Legal Discourse: A Genre-ased Study of Judgments and Arbitration Awards.” Revista Española de lingüística aplicada261:91–103.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Vázquez, Ignacio and Diana Giner
    2012 “Contrastive Study of International Commercial Arbitration and Court Judgments: Intertextuality through Metadiscourse in Action”. InArbitration Awards: Generic Features and Textual Realisations, ed. byVijay K. Bhatia, Giuliana Garzone and Chiara Degano, 171–191, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Verheij, Bart, Jaap C. Hage, and H. Jaap van den Herik
    1998 An Integrated View on Rules and Principles. Artificial Intelligence and Law61:3–26. 10.1023/A:1008247812801
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008247812801 [Google Scholar]
71. Walker, Neil
    2022 “Legalising Inter-Legality.” European Law Open1 (1):216–27. 10.1017/elo.2022.4
    https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2022.4 [Google Scholar]
72. Zenker, Frank, Jan Albert van Laar, B. Cepollaro, M. Hinton, C. G. King, B. Larson, S. Oswald, M. Pichlak, J. H. M. Wagemans
    2024 “Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation.” Argumentation381:7–40. 10.1007/s10503‑023‑09598‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09598-6 [Google Scholar]