The identification of prototypical argumentative patterns in the justification of judicial decisions
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 outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Legal justification and the application of legal rules in clear cases and hard cases
- 3.Prototypical argumentative patterns in clear cases and hard cases
- 4.Prototypical argumentative patterns in hard cases about the meaning of a legal rule
- 4.1The argumentation in a hard case in which the court makes an exception to a legal rule
- 4.2The argumentation in a hard case in which the court gives an interpretation of a legal rule
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References
Dworkin, R.
(
1986)
Law’s empire. London: Fontana.
Eemeren, F.H. van
(
2016)
Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics.
Argumentation, 29, 3, 1–23.
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.
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 Volume 41: Legal Reasoning. (pp. 69–78)
Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie, ARSP Beiheft Nr. 91.
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.
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.
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 the 8th ISSA conference. Amsterdam: Rozenboom. (CD-rom).
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.
Hage, J.C.
(
1997)
Reasoning with rules. An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer.
Hart, H.L.A.
(
1961)
The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MacCormick, N.
(
1978)
Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacCormick, N. & Summers, R.
(Eds.) (
1991)
Interpreting statutes. A comparative study. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Prakken, H.
(
2001) Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure?
Fundamenta Informaticae, 481, 253–271.
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.
(
1998)
Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game.
Artificial Intelligence and Law, 61, 231–287.
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Feteris, Eveline T.
2017.
The Pragma-Dialectical Approach of Legal Argumentation. In
Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation [
Argumentation Library, 1],
► pp. 201 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 may 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.