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

Abstract

This paper examines the argumentation in the case Janowiec and Others vs. Russia, heard before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR, or Court), primarily based on the hearings with additional references to the two judgments issued. The proffered analysis focuses on the types and forms of argumentation used in the counsels’ oral arguments, as well as their rhetorical strategies and tactics, as based on Douglas Walton’s argumentation schemes and Stephen Toulmin’s model of argumentation. The starting point of the analyzed dispute is the verbal classification of the subject of the dispute, which reflects the different historical perspectives in the narratives about the Katyń crime, as related by the litigating parties and the court. The political and media context of this dispute in the Polish, Russian, and international public space is also considered.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.5.3.03jop
2017-01-16
2019-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexy, Robert
    1989A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Translated by R. Adler and N. MacCormick . Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barber, Charles L
    1962 “Some Measurable Characteristics of Modern Scientific Prose.” InContributions to English Syntax and Philology (Gothenburg Studies in English 14), ed. by F. Behre, Gothenburg , Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bosiacki, Adam
    2012 “The Unfinished Business of Katyń.” Hoover Digest, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University Press1: 60–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2014 “Katyń Keeps Its Secrets.” Hoover Digest, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University Press, 2: 109–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2015 ”Zbrodnia katyńska przed Trybunałem.” Temidium80 (1): 84–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cotterill, Janet
    2003Language and Power in Court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Coulthard, Malcolm , and Johnson Alison
    2007An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. De Beaugrande, Robert , and Dressler Wolfgang
    1996 (1981)Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Eemeren, Frans H. van , and Houtlosser Peter
    2002 “Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance.” InDialectic and Rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. by F.H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser , 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2009 “Strategic Maneuvering: Examining Argumentation in Context.” InExamining Argumentation in Context, ed. by Eemeren Frans H. van , 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.1.02eem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1.02eem [Google Scholar]
  11. Feteris, Eveline T
    2012 “Strategic Manoeuvring with Linguistic Arguments in Legal Decisions: A disputable literal reading of the law.” International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse2 (1): 106–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fostiychuk, Viktor Viktorovich , and Gavjuk Michael Nikiforovitch
    2014 “Катынь: ложь и правда” [Katyń: lies and truth], История и археология [ History and Archeology ] 9 (2014), URL: history.snauka.ru/2014/09/1153 (accessed on27 April 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Guryanov, Alexander
    2013 “Current Status of the ‘Katyń Case’ in Russia.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 45(1&2): 694–702.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Halliday, M.A.K. , and Hasan Ruqaiya
    1976Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Halmari, Helena , and Virtanen Tuija
    (eds) 2005Persuasion Across Genres. A linguistic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.130
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130 [Google Scholar]
  16. Harman, Gilbert
    1986Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Harris, Sandra
    2001, “Fragmented Narratives and Multiple Tellers: Witness and Defendant Accounts in Trials.” Discourse Studies3: 53–74. doi: 10.1177/1461445601003001003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003001003 [Google Scholar]
  18. Heri, Corina
    2014 “Enforced Disappearance and the European Court of Human Rights’ ratione temporis Jurisdiction. A Discussion of Temporal Elements in Janowiec and Others v. Russia .” Journal of International Criminal Justice (2014): 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Iazborovskaia Inessa, Sergeevna
    2013 “Катынский синдром — ключевая проблема двусторонних отношений?” [Katyń Syndrome — a Key Issue in Bilateral Relations?], Sensus Historiae, vol. 10, No. 1 (2013), 131–145. sensushistoriae.epigram.eu/index.php/czasopismo/article/view/9/8 [accessed on27 April 2015]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jasudowicz, Tadeusz , and Radosław Fordoński
    2012 “Moscow secrecy in the Katyń Massacre.” InKatyń. State-sponsored Extermination, ed. by M.B. Szonert , 11–21. Cleveland, Ohio: Libra Institute, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kamiński, Ireneusz C. , and Łosińska Ewa
    2015Skarga katyńska. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Arcana.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kienpointner, Manfred
    2009 “Plausible and Fallacious Strategies to Silence One’s Opponent.” InExamining Argumentation in Context, ed. by Eemeren Frans H. van , 61–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.1.05kie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1.05kie [Google Scholar]
  23. Kersten, Mark
    2013 “From Justice Delayed to Justice Denied: Katyń in Strasbourg.” Justice in Conflict, 31 October 2013, justiceinconflict.org/2013/10/31/from-justice-delayed-to-justice-denied-Katyń-in-strasbourg/ [accessed on25 April 2015]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kirchanov Maxim, Valeryevich
    2014 “Проблемы функционирования образов другого в современной России (на примере националистических течений в историографии) [Problems of functioning of the others images in contemporary Russia: case study of the nationalist trends in historiography].” Общество: Социология, Психология, Педагогика1 (2014), 11–16. cyberleninka.ru/article/n/problemy-funktsionirovaniya-obrazov-drugogo-v-sovremennoy-rossii-na-primere-natsionalisticheskih-techeniy-v-istoriografii [accessed on27 April 2015]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kramer, Mark
    2012 “What was Distinctive about Katyń? The Massacres in Context”. InKatyń. State-sponsored Extermination, ed. by M.B. Szonert , 7–10. Cleveland, OH: Libra Institute, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. MacCormick, Neil
    2005Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571246.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571246.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Morawski, Lech
    2000Główne problemy współczesnej filozofii prawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Prawnicze PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Morgan, Bronwen , and Yeung Karen
    2007An Introduction to Law and Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801112
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801112 [Google Scholar]
  29. Oniszczuk, Jerzy
    2008Filozofia i teoria prawa. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Perelman, Chaim
    2004Imperium retoryki. Retoryka i argumentacja. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Perelman, Chaim , and Olbrechts-Tyteca Lucie
    1969The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IA: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rieke, Richard D. , Sillars, Malcolm O. , and Peterson, Tarla Rai
    2005Argumentation and Critical Decision Making. New York: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Reyes, Robert M. , Thomson William C. , and Bower Gordon H
    1980 “Judgmental Biases Resulting from Differing Availabilities of Arguments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39 (1): 2–12. doi: 10.1037/0022‑3514.39.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  34. Salmi-Tolonen, Tarja
    2005 “Persuasion in Judicial Argumentation. The Opinions of the Advocates General at the European Court of Justice.” InPersuasion Across Genres. A Linguistic Approach, ed. by H. Halmari and T. Virtanen , 59–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.130.06sal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.130.06sal [Google Scholar]
  35. Saunders, Kurt M
    2006 (1994) “Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Argument.” Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors3: 164–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Scalia, Antonin , and Garner Bryan A
    2008Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Schabas, William A
    2013 “Katyń: Amnesia in Strasbourg.” 21 October 2013, humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.be/2013/10/Katyń-amnesia-in-strasbourg.html, [accessed on25 April 2015].
  38. Schauer, Frederick F
    2009Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schiappa, Edward
    2003Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schopenhauer, Arthur
    2005Erystyka czyli sztuka prowadzenia sporów. Warszawa: Alma-Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Scollon, Ron
    1998Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction: A Study of News Discourse. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Skuczyński, Paweł
    2010Status etyki prawniczej. Warszawa: Lexis Nexis.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Smith, Stephen E
    2009 “The Poetry of Persuasion: Early Literary Theory and Its Advice to Legal Writers.” Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors6: 55–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Solan, Lawrence M
    2010The Language of Statutes. Laws and Their Interpretation. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226767987.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226767987.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Stanchi, Kathryn M
    2006 “The Science of Persuasion: An Initial Exploration.” Michigan State Law Review1: 1–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stelmach, Jerzy
    2003Kodeks argumentacyjny dla prawników. Kraków: Zakamycze.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Stelmach, Jerzy , and Brożek Bartosz
    2004Metody prawnicze. Kraków: Zakamycze.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Toulmin, Stephen E
    1958The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Vaughan, Stephanie A
    2009 “Persuasion is an Art... But It Is Also an Invaluable Tool in Advocacy.” Baylor Law Review61 (2): 635–682.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Walton, Douglas N
    1996Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 1999Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2002Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2006Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2008 “Arguing from Definition to Verbal Classification: The Case of Redefining ‘Planet’ to Exclude Pluto.” Informal Logic, 28 (2): 129–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Walton, Douglas , Reed Chris , and Macagno Fabrizio
    2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  56. Winter, Steven L
    2001A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Zarefsky, David
    2009 “Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.” InExamining Argumentation in Context, ed. by Eemeren Frans H. van , 115–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.1.08zaf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1.08zaf [Google Scholar]
  58. Zieliński, Maciej , and Ziembiński Zygmunt
    1988Uzasadnianie twierdzeń, ocen i norm w prawoznawstwie. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.5.3.03jop
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation scheme , court dispute , legal argumentation , legal reasoning and narration
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