Chapter published in:
Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Argumentation in Context 11] 2017
► pp. 71–92

Chapter 5
The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisisons

Article outline
  • 5.1Introduction
  • 5.2Pragmatic argumentation in legal justification
    • 5.2.1The justification of the appropriateness of pragmatic argumentation
    • 5.2.2The justification of the applicability of pragmatic argumentation
      • 5.2.2.1The implementation of pragmatic argumentation in legal justification
      • 5.2.2.2The implementation of subordinative argumentation in reaction to critical questions
  • 5.3Exemplary analysis of the use of argumentation referring to consequences in light of the purpose of the rule
    • 5.3.1The justification of the appropriateness of pragmatic argumentation
    • 5.3.2The justification of the applicability of the argument scheme of pragmatic argumentation
  • 5.4Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.05fet
References

References

Alexy, R.
(1989) A theory of legal argumentation. The theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification. (Translation of Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1978.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Atiyah, P. S., & R. S. Summers
(1991) Form and substance in Anglo-American law. A comparative study of legal reasoning, legal theory and legal institutions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bertea, S.
(2005) Does arguing from coherence make sense? Argumentation, 19(4), 433–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bustamante, T.
(2013) On the argumentum ad absurdum in statutory interpretation. Its uses and normative significance. In E. T. Feteris & C. Dahlman (Eds.). Legal argumentation theory. Cross-disciplinary perspectives In: (pp. 21–44). Dordrecht etc.: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Canale, D., & G. Tuzet
(2009) Inferring the ratio. Commitments and constraints. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis & H. J. Plug (Eds.), Argumentation and the application of legal rules (p. 15–34). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Carbonell, F.
(2013) Reasoning by consequences. Applying different argumentation structures to the analysis of consequentialist reasoning in judicial decisions. E. T. Feteris & C. Dahlman (Eds.), Legal argumentation theory. Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht, etc.: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van
(2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & R. Grootendorst
(1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T.
(1990) Conditions and rules for rational discussion in a legal process. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation and Advocacy. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 26(3), 108–117.Google Scholar
(1993) Rationality in legal discussions. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Informal Logic, 15(3), 179–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 16(3), 349–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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 4: Legal Reasoning. Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie, ARSP Beiheft 91, 69–78.Google Scholar
(2005) The rational reconstruction of argumentation referring to consequences and purposes in the application of legal rules: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 19(4), 459–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008a) The pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of teleological argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 22(4), 489–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Strategic maneuvering with the intention of the legislator in the justification of judicial decisions. Argumentation, 22(3), 335–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008c) Weighing and balancing in the justification of judicial decisions. Informal Logic, 28(1), 20–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Strategic manoeuvring in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 93–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012a) The role of the judge in legal proceedings. A pragma-dialectical analysis. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(2), 234–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Strategic manoeuvring in the case of the ‘Unworthy spouse’. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts (pp. 149–164). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kloosterhuis, H.
(2006) Reconstructing interpretative argumentation in legal decisions. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N.
(1978) Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Rhetoric and the rule of law. A theory of legal reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacCormick, N., & R. S. Summers
(Eds.) (1991) Interpreting statutes. A comparative study. Aldershot etc.: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Peczenik, A.
(1989) On law and reason. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plug, H. J.
(2005) Evaluating References to the Intention of the Legislator. In L. J. Wintgens (Ed.), The theory and practice of legislation. Essays in legisprudence (pp. 318–330). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Summers, R. S.
(1991) Statutory interpretation in the United States. In N. MacCormick & R. S. Summers (Eds.), Interpreting statutes (pp. 407–460) Aldershot etc.: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Alves do Nascimento França, Hális
2022.  In New Developments in Legal Reasoning and Logic [Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, 23], ► pp. 129 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. 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.