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


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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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]

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