1887
Volume 5, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The paper is about the uses of the argument from legislative counterfactual intention, in the field of legal interpretation and argumentation. After presenting the argument from intention in general, it distinguishes the varities of the argument from counterfactual legislative intention and discusses their justification conditions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.5.3.02can
2017-01-16
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, J
    2000 “Constitutional Interpretation v. Statutory Interpretation. Understanding the Attractions of ‘Original Intent’.” Legal Theory6: 109–126. doi: 10.1017/S1352325200061048
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200061048 [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, J.L
    1979Philosophical Papers. 3rd ed. Edited by J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock . Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/019283021X.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/019283021X.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barak, A
    2005Purposive Interpretation in Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400841264
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841264 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernatchez, S
    2007 “De la représentativité du pouvoir législatif à la recherche de l’intention du législateur: les fondements et les limites de la démocratie représentative.” Les cahiers de droit48: 449–476. doi: 10.7202/043937ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/043937ar [Google Scholar]
  5. Boella, G . et al.
    2010 “ Lex Minus Dixit Quam Voluit, Lex Magis Dixit Quam Voluit: A Formal Study on Legal Compliance and Interpretation.” InAI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems, ed. by P. Casanovas et al. , 162–183. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boudreau, C . et al.
    2007 “What Statutes Mean: Interpretive Lessons from Positive Theories of Communication and Legislation.” San Diego Law Review44: 957–992.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brandom, R.B
    1994Making It Explicit. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bratman, M.E
    1987Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 1999Faces of Intention. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511625190
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625190 [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell, T
    2001 “Legislative Intent and Democratic Decision Making.” In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy,291–319.
  11. Canale, D. and Tuzet
    2007 “On Legal Inferentialism. Toward a Pragmatics of Semantic Content in Legal Interpretation?” Ratio Juris20: 32–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9337.2007.00345.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2007.00345.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Canale, D. and G. Tuzet
    2008 “On the Contrary: Inferential Analysis and Ontological Assumptions of the A Contrario Argument.” Informal Logic28: 31–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2009 “The A Simili Argument: An Inferentialist Setting.” Ratio Juris22: 499–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9337.2009.00437.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2009.00437.x [Google Scholar]
  14. 2010 “What Is the Reason for This Rule? An Inferential Account of the Ratio Legis .” Argumentation24: 197–210. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑009‑9171‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9171-x [Google Scholar]
  15. 2011 “Use and Abuse of Intratextual Argumentation in Law.” Cogency . Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation3: 33–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ekelöf, P.O
    1958 “Teleological Construction of Statutes.” InScandinavian Studies in Law, Vol. 2, ed. by F. Schmidt , 75–117. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ekins, R
    2012The Nature of Legislative Intent. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646999.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646999.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Feteris, E.T
    2005 “The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.” Argumentation19: 459–470. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑005‑0512‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-0512-0 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2008 “Strategic Maneuvering with the Intention of the Legislator in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.” Argumentation22: 335–353. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9100‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9100-4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fuller, L.L
    1969The Morality of Law. Revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldsworthy, J
    1997 “Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation”. Federal Law Review25: 1–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2005 “Legislative Intentions, Legislative Supremacy, and Legal Positivism.” San Diego Law Review42: 493–518.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Greenawalt, K
    2000 “Are Mental States Relevant for Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation?” Cornell Law Review85: 1609–1672.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Honoré, T
    1987 “How Is Law Possible?” InId., Making Law Bind. Essays Legal and Philosophical, 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Levi, E.H
    1948 “An Introduction to Legal Reasoning.” The University of Chicago Law Review15: 501–574. doi: 10.2307/1597535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1597535 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lewis, D.K
    1973Counterfactuals. Reissued in 2001. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. MacPherson, J.A.E
    2010 “Legislative Intentionalism and Proxy Agency.” Law and Philosophy29: 1–29. doi: 10.1007/s10982‑009‑9048‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-009-9048-z [Google Scholar]
  28. Marmor, A
    2001Positive Law and Objective Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268970.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268970.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2005Interpretation and Legal Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. McCormick, D.N. and R.S. Summers
    (eds) 1991Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative Study. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Moreso, J.J
    2005Lógica, argumentación e interpretación en el derecho. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Naffine, N . et al.
    (eds) 2001Intention in Law and Philosophy. Aldershot: Ashgate-Dartmouth.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Pettit, P
    2001 Collective Intentions. In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy,241–254.
  34. Pino, G
    2008 “Il linguaggio dei diritti.” Ragion pratica31: 393–409.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Quine, W.V.O
    1982Methods of Logic. 4th ed. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Radin, M
    1930 “Statutory Interpretation.” Harvard Law Review43: 863–885. doi: 10.2307/1330769
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1330769 [Google Scholar]
  37. Raz, J
    1996 “Intention in Interpretation.” InThe Autonomy of Law. Essays on Legal Positivism, ed. by R.P. George , 249–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Stalnaker, R
    2003Ways a World May Be. Metaphysical a Anti-metaphysical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi: 10.1093/0199251487.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0199251487.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Stoljar, N
    1998 “Counterfactuals in Interpretation: The Case Against Intentionalism.” Adelaide Law Review20: 29–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2001a “Vagueness, Counterfactual Intentions, and Legal Interpretation.” Legal Theory7: 447–465. doi: 10.1017/S1352325201704089
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325201704089 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2001b “Postulated Authors and Hypothetical Intentions.” In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy,271–290.
  42. Summers, R.S
    2000Essays in Legal Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9407‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9407-3 [Google Scholar]
  43. Williams, J
    2001 “Constitutional Intention: The Limits of Originalism.” In Naffine , et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy,321–341.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.5.3.02can
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error