Hide
Show all
Email this article Analyzing Legal Argumentation: What Theoretical Model Is the Most Comprehensive?
Abstract
Today, there is a clear need in developing a unified theoretical model of legal argumentation viable for all areas of legal practice and legal doctrine. Despite the existence of several models within either general argumentation theory or multiple judicial-reasoning doctrines, none of them can be used as a universal tool for studies of legal argumentation. The aim of this article is to suggest a theoretical model of legal argumentation viable for analysis of legal argumentation not only in judicial reasoning but also in other areas, e.g., law making, law application, or law interpretation. The subject matter of this article is a theoretical model of legal argumentation as a universal multidisciplinary theoretical basis for legal argumentation analysis. The theoretical model of legal argumentation encompasses an argumentative situation, a body of legal arguing, instruments of legal arguing and argumentation, a reconstruction and an evaluation of legal argumentation. In its turn, the body of legal arguing includes: parties of legal arguing, a subject of legal arguing, and a content of legal arguing. The instruments of legal arguing include legal and other arguments, argument schemes, argumentation structures, and rules of legal argumentation.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Aarnio A., On Legal Reasoning as Practical Reasoning, “International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science” 1988, vol. 3(7–9).
Aarnio A., The Rational as Reasonable: A Treatise on Legal Justification, Dordrecht 1987, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4700-9.
Alexy R., A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Oxford 1989.
Bermejo-Luque L., Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory, Dordrecht 2011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1761-9.
Bertea S., Legal Argumentation Theory and the Concept of Law, [in:] Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, eds. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, Dordrecht 2003, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_17.
Eemeren F.H. van, The State of the Art in Argumentation Theory, [in:] Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, Amsterdam 2001.
Eemeren F.H. van, Garssen B., Krabbe E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans A.F., Verheij B., Wagemans J.H.M., Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Dordrecht 2014, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5.
Feteris E., Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on Justification of Judicial Decisions, Dordrecht 1999, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9219-2.
Feteris E., Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on Justification of Judicial Decisions, Dordrecht 2017, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4.
Feteris E., Kloosterhuis H., The Analysis and Evaluation of Legal Argumentation: Approaches from Legal Theory and Argumentation Theory, “Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric” 2009, vol. 16(29).
Feteris E., Kloosterhuis H., Plug J., Uses of Linguistic Argumentation in the Justification of Legal Decisions, [in:] The Language of Argumentation, eds. R. Boogaart, H. Jansen, M. van Leeuwen, Cham 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52907-9_7.
Freeman J., Argument Structure, Dordrecht 2011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0357-5.
Garssen B., Argument Schemes, [in:] Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, ed. F. van Eemeren, Amsterdam 2001.
Hinton M., Evaluating the Language of Argument, Dordrecht 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61694-6.
Houtlosser P., Points of View, [in] Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, Amsterdam 2001.
Kistianyk V., Judicial Argumentation: Features, Comparative Analysis, Domestic and Foreign Practice, Kyiv 2021 (thesis for candidate degree in law; in Ukrainian).
Luts L., Argumentation in Law-Making Process, “Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law” 2020, no. 9 (in Ukrainian), DOI: https://doi.org/10.32849/2663-5313/2020.9.29.
МасCormick N., Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Oxford 1978.
MacCormick N., Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning, Oxford 2005, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571246.001.0001.
Mercier H., Some Clarifications about the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning: A Reply to Santibáñez Yañez, “Informal Logic” 2012, vol. 32(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v32i2.3598.
Novak M., Visual as Multi-Modal Argumentation in Law, “Bratislava Law Review” 2021, vol. 5(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2021.5.1.187.
Peczenik A., On Law and Reason, Dordrecht 1989, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8381-5.
Piszcz A., COVID‑19 Pandemic‑Related Arguments in Polish Civil Litigation, “International Journal for the Semiotics of Law” 2022, vol. 35(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09875-1.
Stelmach J., Brożek B., Methods of Legal Reasoning, Dordrecht 2010.
Tindale C., Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument, New York 1999.
Walton D., Legal Argumentation and Evidence, Pennsylvania 2002.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2022.31.3.85-103
Date of publication: 2022-09-28 19:31:16
Date of submission: 2021-09-25 21:29:03
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Tamara Dudash
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.