The burden of proof in dealing with political accountability
Corina Andone | University of Amsterdam and ILIAS (The Netherlands)
The aim of this paper is to explain from a pragma-dialectical argumentative perspective the use of the concept of burden of proof in dealing with political accountability. In the first part of the paper, a procedural view of the burden of proof is sketched which is fundamental for understanding its rationale. In the second part, the role of this concept in accountability practices in explained. Finally, it is shown what the burden of proof involves in the case when a politician has to account for his views in a political interview.
References (27)
Bovens, Mark
2006 “
Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework.”
European Law Journal 13 (4): 447–468.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Curtin, Deirdre
2007 “
Holding (Quasi-) Autonomous EU Administrative Actors to Public Account.”
European Law Journal 13 (4): 523–541.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Curtin, Deirdre, and André Nollkaemper
2005 “
Conceptualizing Accountability in International and European Law.”
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law XXXVI: 3–20.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eemeren, Frans H. Van, and Bart Garssen
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
1984 Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
1992 Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
2004.
A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Peter Houtlosser
2002 “
Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof.” In
Advances in Pragma-dialectics, ed. by
Frans H. van Eemeren, 13–28. Amsterdam/ Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/ Vale Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
2007 Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Houtlosser, Peter
2002 “
Indicators of a Point of View.” In
Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by
Frans H. van Eemeren, 169–184. Amsterdam/ Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/ Vale Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kauffeld, Fred J
2003 “
The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption with Special Attention to Veracity and the Burden of Proof.” In
Anyone Who Has a View. Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, ed. by
Frans H. van Eemeren,
J. Anthony Blair,
Charles A Willard, and
A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 133–146. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kauffeld, Fred J
2007a “
The Burden of Proof: A Macro or a Micro Level Concept?” In
Reason Reclaimed, ed. by
Hans Hansen, and
Robert Pinto, 65–73. Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kauffeld, Fred J
2007b “
What Are We Learning about the Pragmatics of the Arguers’ Obligations?” In
Concerning Argument: Selected Papers from the 15th Biennial Conference on Argumentation, ed. by
Scott Jacobs, 1–31. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Montgomery, Martin
2007 The Discourse of Broadcast News. A Linguistic Approach. London/ New York: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mulgan, Richard
2003 Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oliver, Dawn
2009 “
Executive Accountability: A Key Concept.” In
Political Accountability and European Integration, ed. by
Luc Verhey,
Philipp Kiiver, and
Sandor Loeffen, 9–31. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rescher, Nicholas
1977 Dialectics. A Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rescher, Nicholas
2006 Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shackleton, Michael
1998 “
The European Parliament’s New Committees of Inquiry: Tiger or Paper Tiger?”
Journal of Common Market Studies 36 (1): 115–130.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Strøm, Kaare
2000 “
Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies.”
European Journal of Political Research 37: 261–289.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomkins, Adam
2008 “
Political Accountability in the United Kingdom.” In
Political Accountability in Europe: Which Way Forward?, ed. by
Luc Verhey,
Hansko Broeksteeg, and
Ilse van den Driessche, 243–269. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tseronis, Assimakis
2009 Qualifying Standpoints. Stance Adverbials as a Presentational Device for Managing the Burden of Proof. Utrecht: LOT.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verhey, Luc
2009 “
Political Accountability: A Useful Concept in EU Inter-Institutional Relations?” In
Political Accountability and European Integration, ed. by
Luc Verhey,
Philipp Kiiver, and
Sandor Loeffen, 55–70. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas N., and Erik C.W. Krabbe
1995 Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wonka, Arndt
2007 “
Technocratic and Independent? The Appointment of European Commissioners and its Policy Implications.”
Journal of European Public Policy 14 (2): 169–189.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 june 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.