Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 12:2 (2023) ► pp.211–233

A repugnant possibility

The construction of the argumentation in the enforcement of annulled arbitral award Commisa v Pemex

ORCID logo | Universidad San Jorge
Commisa v Pemex is one of the rare cases where an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration is enforced. The judges are forced to justify how the notion of public policy becomes a priority over international comity.
This paper explores, from a pragma-dialectic approach, what rhetorical strategies are employed to justify this decision. Legal Argumentation Theory (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004; Feteris, 2005; van Eemeren, 2007; Feteris & Kloosterhuis, 2009) values a combination between rational knowledge and rhetoric; for which interpersonality could be highly involved. On the one hand, metaphor (Lakoff & Turner, 1989; Sopory & Dillard, 2002; Mussolf, 2017) supports the legal argumentation; while, on the other hand, hedges, intensifiers, attitudinal markers (Vande Kopple, 1985; Crismore, 1993; Hyland, 1999, 2000a; Dafouz, 2003) shape the message to convince the audience that, on this occasion, a previously annulled international arbitral award should be enforced.
Keywords: annulled arbitral awards, arbitration, interpersonality, legal argumentation, legal English, metaphor, pragma-dialectics, rhetoric, strategic manouvering
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Case background: Commisa v Pemex
    • 1.2The role of the New York convention and the Panama Convention
      • 1.2.1The language in the conventions
  • 2. Strategic manouvering in legal decisions
  • 3.Interpersonality and rhetorical strategies of persuasion
  • 4.The use of metaphor
  • 5.Analysis and discussion of the argumentation of Commisa v Pemex
    • 5.1First standpoint: Jurisdiction and venue
    • 5.2Second standpoint: Discretion to confirm the award
    • 5.3Third standpoint: Performance bonds
    • 5.4Final remarks
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22004.gin
References (49)
References
Aarnio, A. (1987). The rational as reasonable. A treatise of legal justification. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ackermann v. Levine, 610 F. Supp. 633 (SDNY 1985)Google Scholar
Alexy, R. (1989). A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1926. Rhetoric. (1926) trans. by J. H. Freese. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) (Trans., C. Emerson, Trans.). In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
(1986) (V. W. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). “Adverbial Stance Types in English”. Discourse Processes, 111, 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors Studies in Language and Philosophy. Madrid Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cicero, M. T. n.d. De Inventione Studi di filologia e letteratura. 1998. Galatina: M. Congedo.Google Scholar
-55. De Oratore. 1948 trans. by E. W. Sutton: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Constable, M. (2014). Law as language. Critical Analysis of Law, 1(1), 63–74.Google Scholar
Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración y Producción, 9621 F. Supp. 2d 642 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)Google Scholar
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 10 June 1958, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 330, No. 4739, p. 3Google Scholar
Crismore, A., R. Markkanen, & M. S. Steffensen. (1993). “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students”. Written Communication, 10(1): 39–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dafouz, E. (2003). “Metadiscourse Revisited: A Contrastive Study of Persuasive Writing in Professional Discourse.” Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 111, 29–52.Google Scholar
Ebbesson, J. (2008). Law, Power and Language: Beware of Metaphors. Scandinavian Studies in Law 531:259–269.Google Scholar
Endicott, T. A. O. (2000). Vagueness in Law. Oxford: OUP Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (2005). “The rational reconstruction of argumentation referring to consequences and purposes in the application of legal rules: a pragmadialectical perspective”, Argumentation 19 (4), 459–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feteris, E., & H. Kloosterhuis. (2009). “The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation: approaches from legal theory and argumentation theory.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 16(29), 307–331.Google Scholar
Giner, D. (2017). “Rhetorical strategies of persuasion in the reasoning of international investment arbitral awards” in Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres: providing keys to the rhetoric of professional communities. Linguistic Insights, ed. by María Ángeles Orts, Ruth Breeze, and Maurizio Gotti, 243–265. Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, Wien (et al.): Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Goodrich, H. F. (1924). Tort Obligations and the Conflict of Laws. In The Conflict of Laws. 73 U. of Pa. L. Rev., 19–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hinkle, R K., A. D. Martin, J. D. Shaub & E. Tiller. (2012). “A positive theory and empirical analysis of strategic word choice in district court opinions. Journal of Legal Analysis, 41(), 407–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S., & G. Thompson (eds.) (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Inter-American Convention on international commercial arbitration, 30 January 1975, 1438 U.N.T.S. 245, O.A.S.T.S. No. 42.Google Scholar
Kloosterhuis, H. (2008). The Strategic Use of Formal Argumentation in Legal Decisions. Ratio Juris, 211: 496–506.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & M. Turner. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCormac, E. R. (1985). A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Cambridge, Mass: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Maniruzzaman, A. F. M. (2012). The Concept of Good Faith in International Investment Disputes – The Arbitrator’s Dilemma. Amicus Curiae: Journal of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies 891. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzin, M. (2012). A rhetorical Approach to Legal Reasoning. In Exploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston, and Geoffrey Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142–177.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2017). Metaphor and Cultural Cognition. In Sharifian, F. (ed.) Advances in Cultural Linguistics, Springer Singapore, pp. 325–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, S. A. (1999). Uses of Metaphor in Legal Argument. New York Law Journal, November. 4371.Google Scholar
Osborn, M. & D. Ehninger. (1962). The Metaphor in Public Address. Speech Monograph, 291, pp. 223–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C. (1979). Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
Quintilian, M. F. 92–94. Institutio Oratoria. 1980 trans. by H. E. Butler. 41 vols. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, D. & C. Crocker (eds.). (1977). The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. R. (2007). Levels of Metaphor in Persuasive Legal Writing. Mercer Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 3.Google Scholar
Sopory, P., & J. P. Dillard. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382–419Google Scholar
Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1981)Google Scholar
Termorio S.A.E.S.P. & Leaseco Group, L.L.C. v. Electranta S.P. et al., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007)Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & R. Grootendorst. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2007). Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). “Some Explanatory Discourse on Metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 36/11, 82–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vass, H. (2004). “Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres”. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 71, 125–141.Google Scholar
Vázquez, I., and D. Giner. (2012). “Contrastive Study of International Commercial Arbitration and Court Judgments: Intertextuality through Metadiscourse in Action” in Arbitration awards: Generic features and textual realizations, ed. by V. Bhatia, G. Garzone, and C. Degano, 171–191. Cambridge: Cambridge Publishing Scholars.Google Scholar