In this contribution I give an analysis of strategic manoeuvring in a legal context. I give an analysis of the argumentation in the justification of the decision by the Dutch Supreme Court in the famous case of the ‘Unworthy Spouse’ and I describe how the Supreme Court operates strategically within the space it has within the rules for the discussion in cassation to steer the outcome of the discussion in a particular direction. In my analysis of the discussion strategy I use the concept of strategic manoeuvring developed by van Eemeren (2010) and van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2006, 2007). Starting from this conception I show that the discussion strategy of the Supreme Court can be described as a consistent effort in the different stages of a critical discussion to steer the discussion in the desired direction within the boundaries of the rules for the discussion in cassation.
2013. Strategic Maneuvering with the Argumentative Role of Legal Principles in the Case of the “Unworthy Spouse”. In Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives [Law and Philosophy Library, 102], ► pp. 85 ff.
Feteris, Eveline T.
2015. Argumentation from Reasonableness in the Justification of Judicial Decisions. In Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation [Law and Philosophy Library, 112], ► pp. 179 ff.
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 23 july 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.