The Katyń court case

References

1. Alexy, Robert
   1989 A 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. Bosiacki, Adam
   2014 “Katyń Keeps Its Secrets.” Hoover Digest, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University Press, 2: 109–113.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bosiacki, Adam
   2015 ”Zbrodnia katyńska przed Trybunałem.” Temidium80 (1): 84–87.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Cotterill, Janet
   2003 Language and Power in Court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Coulthard, Malcolm , and Johnson Alison
   2007 An 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. Eemeren, Frans H. van , and Houtlosser Peter
    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
    1976 Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Halmari, Helena , and Virtanen Tuija
    (eds) 2005 Persuasion 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
    1986 Change 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
    2015 Skarga 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
    2005 Rhetoric 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
    2000 Główne problemy współczesnej filozofii prawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Prawnicze PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Morgan, Bronwen , and Yeung Karen
    2007 An Introduction to Law and Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801112
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801112 [Google Scholar]
29. Oniszczuk, Jerzy
    2008 Filozofia i teoria prawa. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Perelman, Chaim
    2004 Imperium retoryki. Retoryka i argumentacja. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Perelman, Chaim , and Olbrechts-Tyteca Lucie
    1969 The 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
    2005 Argumentation 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
    2008 Making 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
    2009 Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Schiappa, Edward
    2003 Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Schopenhauer, Arthur
    2005 Erystyka czyli sztuka prowadzenia sporów. Warszawa: Alma-Press.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Scollon, Ron
    1998 Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction: A Study of News Discourse. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Skuczyński, Paweł
    2010 Status 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
    2010 The 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
    2003 Kodeks argumentacyjny dla prawników. Kraków: Zakamycze.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Stelmach, Jerzy , and Brożek Bartosz
    2004 Metody prawnicze. Kraków: Zakamycze.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Toulmin, Stephen E
    1958 The 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
    1996 Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Walton, Douglas N
    1999 Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Walton, Douglas N
    2002 Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Walton, Douglas N
    2006 Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Walton, Douglas N
    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
    2008 Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
56. Winter, Steven L
    2001 A 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
    1988 Uzasadnianie twierdzeń, ocen i norm w prawoznawstwie. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
    [Google Scholar]