The identification of prototypical argumentative patterns in the justification of judicial decisions

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. Feteris, E.T.
   (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. Feteris, E.T.
   (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. Feteris, E.T.
   (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. Feteris, E.T.
   (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]