Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 5:3 (2016) ► pp. 249–270

What the legislature did not say

Legislative intentions and counterfactuals in legal argumentation

| Bocconi University, Milan
The paper is about the uses of the argument from legislative counterfactual intention, in the field of legal interpretation and argumentation. After presenting the argument from intention in general, it distinguishes the varities of the argument from counterfactual legislative intention and discusses their justification conditions.
Keywords: legal argumentation, counterfactuals, silent legislature, legal interpretation, possible worlds, legislative intention
Published online: 27 January 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.5.3.02can
References

References

Allan, J.
2000 “Constitutional Interpretation v. Statutory Interpretation. Understanding the Attractions of ‘Original Intent’.” Legal Theory 6: 109–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J.L.
1979 Philosophical Papers. 3rd ed. Edited by J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barak, A.
2005 Purposive Interpretation in Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bernatchez, S.
2007 “De la représentativité du pouvoir législatif à la recherche de l’intention du législateur: les fondements et les limites de la démocratie représentative.” Les cahiers de droit 48: 449–476. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boella, G.. et al.
2010 “ Lex Minus Dixit Quam Voluit, Lex Magis Dixit Quam Voluit: A Formal Study on Legal Compliance and Interpretation.” In AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems, ed. by P. Casanovas et al., 162–183. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boudreau, C.. et al.
2007 “What Statutes Mean: Interpretive Lessons from Positive Theories of Communication and Legislation.” San Diego Law Review 44: 957–992.Google Scholar
Brandom, R.B.
1994 Making It Explicit. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M.E.
1987 Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1999 Faces of Intention. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T.
2001 “Legislative Intent and Democratic Decision Making.” In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy, 291–319.Google Scholar
Canale, D. and Tuzet
2007 “On Legal Inferentialism. Toward a Pragmatics of Semantic Content in Legal Interpretation?” Ratio Juris 20: 32–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Canale, D. and G. Tuzet
2008 “On the Contrary: Inferential Analysis and Ontological Assumptions of the A Contrario Argument.” Informal Logic 28: 31–43.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “The A Simili Argument: An Inferentialist Setting.” Ratio Juris 22: 499–509. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “What Is the Reason for This Rule? An Inferential Account of the Ratio Legis .” Argumentation 24: 197–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Use and Abuse of Intratextual Argumentation in Law.” Cogency . Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 3: 33–52.Google Scholar
Ekelöf, P.O.
1958 “Teleological Construction of Statutes.” In Scandinavian Studies in Law, Vol. 2, ed. by F. Schmidt, 75–117. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ekins, R.
2012 The Nature of Legislative Intent. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feteris, E.T.
2005 “The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.” Argumentation 19: 459–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Strategic Maneuvering with the Intention of the Legislator in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.” Argumentation 22: 335–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, L.L.
1969 The Morality of Law. Revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsworthy, J.
1997 “Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation”. Federal Law Review 25: 1–50.Google Scholar
2005 “Legislative Intentions, Legislative Supremacy, and Legal Positivism.” San Diego Law Review 42: 493–518.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, K.
2000 “Are Mental States Relevant for Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation?” Cornell Law Review 85: 1609–1672.Google Scholar
Honoré, T.
1987 “How Is Law Possible?” In Id., Making Law Bind. Essays Legal and Philosophical, 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levi, E.H.
1948 “An Introduction to Legal Reasoning.” The University of Chicago Law Review 15: 501–574. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D.K.
1973 Counterfactuals. Reissued in 2001. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
MacPherson, J.A.E.
2010 “Legislative Intentionalism and Proxy Agency.” Law and Philosophy 29: 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marmor, A.
2001 Positive Law and Objective Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Interpretation and Legal Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
McCormick, D.N. and R.S. Summers
(eds) 1991 Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative Study. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Moreso, J.J.
2005 Lógica, argumentación e interpretación en el derecho. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.Google Scholar
Naffine, N.. et al.
(eds) 2001 Intention in Law and Philosophy. Aldershot: Ashgate-Dartmouth.Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
Pettit, P.
2001 Collective Intentions. In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy, 241–254.Google Scholar
Pino, G.
2008 “Il linguaggio dei diritti.” Ragion pratica 31: 393–409.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O.
1982 Methods of Logic. 4th ed. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Radin, M.
1930 “Statutory Interpretation.” Harvard Law Review 43: 863–885. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J.
1996 “Intention in Interpretation.” In The Autonomy of Law. Essays on Legal Positivism, ed. by R.P. George, 249–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R.
2003 Ways a World May Be. Metaphysical a Anti-metaphysical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stoljar, N.
1998 “Counterfactuals in Interpretation: The Case Against Intentionalism.” Adelaide Law Review 20: 29–59.Google Scholar
2001a “Vagueness, Counterfactual Intentions, and Legal Interpretation.” Legal Theory 7: 447–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001b “Postulated Authors and Hypothetical Intentions.” In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy, 271–290.Google Scholar
Summers, R.S.
2000 Essays in Legal Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.
2001 “Constitutional Intention: The Limits of Originalism.” In Naffine, et al. (2001), pp. Intention in Law and Philosophy, 321–341.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Esposito, Fabrizio & Giovanni Tuzet
2020. Economic consequences for lawyers. Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:3 ► pp. 368 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 march 2021. 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.