Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 5:3 (2016) ► pp.271–314

The Katyń court case

Stories about history, politics, and words

| Uniwersytet Warszawski
This paper examines the argumentation in the case Janowiec and Others vs. Russia, heard before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR, or Court), primarily based on the hearings with additional references to the two judgments issued. The proffered analysis focuses on the types and forms of argumentation used in the counsels’ oral arguments, as well as their rhetorical strategies and tactics, as based on Douglas Walton’s argumentation schemes and Stephen Toulmin’s model of argumentation. The starting point of the analyzed dispute is the verbal classification of the subject of the dispute, which reflects the different historical perspectives in the narratives about the Katyń crime, as related by the litigating parties and the court. The political and media context of this dispute in the Polish, Russian, and international public space is also considered.
Keywords: legal reasoning, narration, argumentation scheme, legal argumentation, court dispute
Published online: 27 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.5.3.03jop
References (58)
Alexy, Robert. 1989. A Theory of Legal Argumentation. Translated by R. Adler and N. MacCormick. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Barber, Charles L. 1962. “Some Measurable Characteristics of Modern Scientific Prose.” In Contributions to English Syntax and Philology (Gothenburg Studies in English 14), ed. by F. Behre, Gothenburg, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Bosiacki, Adam. 2012. “The Unfinished Business of Katyń.” Hoover Digest, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University Press 11: 60–65.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Katyń Keeps Its Secrets.” Hoover Digest, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University Press, 21: 109–113.Google Scholar
. 2015. ”Zbrodnia katyńska przed Trybunałem.” Temidium 80 (1): 84–87.Google Scholar
Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and Power in Court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, Malcolm, and Johnson Alison. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert, and Dressler Wolfgang. 1996 (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Houtlosser Peter. 2002. “Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. by F.H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Strategic Maneuvering: Examining Argumentation in Context.” In Examining Argumentation in Context, ed. by Eemeren Frans H. van, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feteris, Eveline T. 2012. “Strategic Manoeuvring with Linguistic Arguments in Legal Decisions: A disputable literal reading of the law.” International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse 2 (1): 106–125.Google Scholar
Fostiychuk, Viktor Viktorovich, and Gavjuk Michael Nikiforovitch. 2014. “Катынь: ложь и правда” [Katyń: lies and truth], История и археология [ History and Archeology ] 91 (2014), URL: [URL] (accessed on 27 April 2015).Google Scholar
Guryanov, Alexander. 2013. “Current Status of the ‘Katyń Case’ in Russia.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 45(1&2): 694–702.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., and Hasan Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Halmari, Helena, and Virtanen Tuija (eds). 2005. Persuasion Across Genres. A linguistic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1986. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2001, “Fragmented Narratives and Multiple Tellers: Witness and Defendant Accounts in Trials.” Discourse Studies 31: 53–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heri, Corina. 2014. “Enforced Disappearance and the European Court of Human Rights’ ratione temporis Jurisdiction. A Discussion of Temporal Elements in Janowiec and Others v. Russia .” Journal of International Criminal Justice (20141): 1–18.Google Scholar
Iazborovskaia Inessa, Sergeevna. 2013. “Катынский синдром — ключевая проблема двусторонних отношений?” [Katyń Syndrome — a Key Issue in Bilateral Relations?], Sensus Historiae, vol. 10, No. 1 (2013), 131–145. [URL] [accessed on 27 April 2015]Google Scholar
Jasudowicz, Tadeusz, and Radosław Fordoński. 2012. “Moscow secrecy in the Katyń Massacre.” In Katyń. State-sponsored Extermination, ed. by M.B. Szonert, 11–21. Cleveland, Ohio: Libra Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
Kamiński, Ireneusz C., and Łosińska Ewa. 2015. Skarga katyńska. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Arcana.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred. 2009. “Plausible and Fallacious Strategies to Silence One’s Opponent.” In Examining Argumentation in Context, ed. by Eemeren Frans H. van, 61–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kersten, Mark. 2013. “From Justice Delayed to Justice Denied: Katyń in Strasbourg.” Justice in Conflict, 31 October 2013, [URL] [accessed on 25 April 2015]Google Scholar
Kirchanov Maxim, Valeryevich. 2014. “Проблемы функционирования образов другого в современной России (на примере националистических течений в историографии) [Problems of functioning of the others images in contemporary Russia: case study of the nationalist trends in historiography].” Общество: Социология, Психология, Педагогика 11 (2014), 11–16. [URL] [accessed on 27 April 2015]Google Scholar
Kramer, Mark. 2012. “What was Distinctive about Katyń? The Massacres in Context”. In Katyń. State-sponsored Extermination, ed. by M.B. Szonert, 7–10. Cleveland, OH: Libra Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 2005. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morawski, Lech. 2000. Główne problemy współczesnej filozofii prawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Prawnicze PWN.Google Scholar
Morgan, Bronwen, and Yeung Karen. 2007. An Introduction to Law and Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oniszczuk, Jerzy. 2008. Filozofia i teoria prawa. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim. 2004. Imperium retoryki. Retoryka i argumentacja. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Olbrechts-Tyteca Lucie. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IA: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Rieke, Richard D., Sillars, Malcolm O., and Peterson, Tarla Rai. 2005. Argumentation and Critical Decision Making. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Reyes, Robert M., Thomson William C., and Bower Gordon H. 1980. “Judgmental Biases Resulting from Differing Availabilities of Arguments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (1): 2–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmi-Tolonen, Tarja. 2005. “Persuasion in Judicial Argumentation. The Opinions of the Advocates General at the European Court of Justice.” In Persuasion Across Genres. A Linguistic Approach, ed. by H. Halmari and T. Virtanen, 59–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saunders, Kurt M. 2006 (1994). “Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Argument.” Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors 31: 164–176.Google Scholar
Scalia, Antonin, and Garner Bryan A. 2008. Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.Google Scholar
Schabas, William A. 2013. “Katyń: Amnesia in Strasbourg.” 21 October 2013, [URL], [accessed on 25 April 2015].
Schauer, Frederick F. 2009. Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
Schiappa, Edward. 2003. Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur. 2005. Erystyka czyli sztuka prowadzenia sporów. Warszawa: Alma-Press.Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron. 1998. Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction: A Study of News Discourse. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Skuczyński, Paweł. 2010. Status etyki prawniczej. Warszawa: Lexis Nexis.Google Scholar
Smith, Stephen E. 2009. “The Poetry of Persuasion: Early Literary Theory and Its Advice to Legal Writers.” Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors 61: 55–74.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. 2010. The Language of Statutes. Laws and Their Interpretation. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanchi, Kathryn M. 2006. “The Science of Persuasion: An Initial Exploration.” Michigan State Law Review 11: 1–45.Google Scholar
Stelmach, Jerzy. 2003. Kodeks argumentacyjny dla prawników. Kraków: Zakamycze.Google Scholar
Stelmach, Jerzy, and Brożek Bartosz. 2004. Metody prawnicze. Kraków: Zakamycze.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Stephanie A. 2009. “Persuasion is an Art... But It Is Also an Invaluable Tool in Advocacy.” Baylor Law Review 61 (2): 635–682.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1999. Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Arguing from Definition to Verbal Classification: The Case of Redefining ‘Planet’ to Exclude Pluto.” Informal Logic, 28 (2): 129–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Reed Chris, and Macagno Fabrizio. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, Steven L. 2001. A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 2009. “Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.” In Examining Argumentation in Context, ed. by Eemeren Frans H. van, 115–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zieliński, Maciej, and Ziembiński Zygmunt. 1988. Uzasadnianie twierdzeń, ocen i norm w prawoznawstwie. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar