1887
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In this contribution I identify prototypical patterns in the justification of judicial decisions. From a pragma-dialectical perspective, I explain the nature and rationale for the argumentative patterns from the perspective of the institutional function of legal justification and I distinguish different argumentative patterns in clear cases and hard cases in the justification of judicial decisions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.1.03fet
2017-03-31
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Dworkin, R.
    (1986) Law’s empire. London: Fontana.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Eemeren, F.H. van
    (2016) Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 29, 3, 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
  3. Feteris, E.T.
    (1993) The judge as a critical antagonist in a legal process: a pragma-dialectical perspective. In R.E. McKerrow (Ed.), Argument and the Postmodern Challenge. Proceedings of the eighth SCA/AFA Conference on argumentation. (pp.476–480) Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2004) Rational reconstruction of legal argumentation and the role of arguments from consequences’. In: A. Soeteman (ed.), Pluralism and law. Proceedings of the 20th IVR World Congress, Amsterdam 2001 Volume4: Legal Reasoning. (pp.69–78) Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie, ARSP Beiheft Nr. 91.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2007) An analysis of teleological-evaluative argumentation in complex structures of legal justification. In: H.V. Hansen et al. (Eds.), Dissensus & The search for common ground. (CD-om) (pp.1–11) Windsor, ON: OSSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2015a) Argumentation from reasonableness in the justification of judicial decisions. In: T. Bustamante and C. Dahlman (Eds.), Argument types and fallacies in legal argumentation. (pp.179–203) Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2015b) The role of pragmatic argumentation referring to consequences, goals and values in the justification of judicial decisions. In B. Garssen , D. Godden , G. Mitchell & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the8th ISSA conference. Amsterdam: Rozenboom. (CD-rom).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Feteris, E.T
    (2016) Prototypical argumentative patterns in a legal context: The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of legal decisions. Argumentation, 29, 3, 61–79. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9376‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9376-0 [Google Scholar]
  9. Hage, J.C.
    (1997) Reasoning with rules. An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hart, H.L.A.
    (1961) The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. MacCormick, N.
    (1978) Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. MacCormick, N. & Summers, R.
    (Eds.) (1991) Interpreting statutes. A comparative study. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Prakken, H.
    (2001) Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure?Fundamenta Informaticae, 48, 253–271.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Prakken, H. , Sartor, G.
    (1998) Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6, 231–287. doi: 10.1023/A:1008278309945
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008278309945 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.1.03fet
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.1.03fet
Loading

Data & Media 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