Cover not available
Part of
Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu and Stanca Măda
[Dialogue Studies 26] 2015
► pp. 19–38

The burden of proof in dealing with political accountability

| 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.

Published online: 1 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.02and
References
Bovens, Mark
2006 “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework.” European Law Journal 13 (4): 447–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curtin, Deirdre
2007 “Holding (Quasi-) Autonomous EU Administrative Actors to Public Account.” European Law Journal 13 (4): 523–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curtin, Deirdre, and André Nollkaemper
2005 “Conceptualizing Accountability in International and European Law.” Netherlands Yearbook of International Law XXXVI: 3–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. Van, and Bart Garssen
2011 “Exploiting the Room for Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Dealing with Audience Demand in the European Parliament.” In Exploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 43–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
2007 Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Montgomery, Martin
2007 The Discourse of Broadcast News. A Linguistic Approach. London/ New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mulgan, Richard
2003 Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Rescher, Nicholas
1977 Dialectics. A Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
2006 Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Strøm, Kaare
2000 “Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 37: 261–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Tseronis, Assimakis
2009 Qualifying Standpoints. Stance Adverbials as a Presentational Device for Managing the Burden of Proof. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
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
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Demir, Yeliz
2016. Maneuvering strategically in a press conference to diminish political responsibility for a critical event. Journal of Argumentation in Context 5:2 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Hernández, Alfonso
2021. Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 may 2023. 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.