Abstract
This paper shows how a theory of legal argumentation can be developed from a specific dialogical approach, a pragma-dialectical approach. It demonstrates how ideas from pragmadialectical theory on the analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation can be combined with ideas taken from legal theory. It describes how a model for the analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation can be developed and it specifies a research programme for legal argumentation from a pragma-dialectical perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Aarnio, A. (1977). On legal reasoning. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.
Aarnio, A. (1987). The rational as reasonable. A treatise of legal justification. Dordrecht etc.: Reidel.
Aarnio, A, R. Alexy, A. Peczenik (1981) ‘The foundation of legal reasoning'. Rechtstheorie, Band 21, Nr. 2, p. 133–158, nr. 3, p. 257–279, nr. 4, p. 423–448.
Alexy, R. (1980). ‘Die logische Analyse juristischer Entscheidungen'. In: Hassemer et al (Hrsg.), Argumentation und Recht. Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie, Beiheft Neue Folge No. 14, Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, p. 181–212.
Alexy, R. (1989). A theory of legal argumentation. The theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Translation of: Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des Rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1978, Second edition 1991 with a reaction to critics).
Alexy, R., A. Peczenik (1990). ‘The concept of coherence and its significance for discursive rationality'. Ratio Juris, Vol. 3, nr. 1, p. 130–147.
Eemeren, F.H. van, (1987). ‘Argumentation studies' five estates'. In: J.W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and critical practices. Annandale: Speech Communication Association, p. 9–24.
Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Feteris, E.T. (1989). Discussieregels in het recht. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van het burgerlijk proces en het strafproces. (Rules for discussion in law. A pragma-dialectical analysis of the Dutch civil process and criminal process) Dissertation University of Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Foris.
Feteris, E.T. (1990). ‘Conditions and rules for rational discussion in a legal process: A pragma-dialectical perspective'. Argumentation and Advocacy. Journal of the American Forensic Association. Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 108–117.
Feteris, E.T. (1991). ‘Normative reconstruction of legal discussions'. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, June 19–22 1990. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, p. 768–775.
Feteris, E.T. (1993). ‘Rationality in legal discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective'. Informal Logic, Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 179–188.
Feteris, E.T. (1995). ‘The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation from a pragma-dialectical perspective'. In: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. IV, Amsterdam: Sic Sat, p. 42–51.
Kloosterhuis, H. (1994). ‘Analysing analogy argumentation in judicial decisions'. In: F.H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, p. 238–246.
Kloosterhuis, H. (1995). ‘The study of analogy argumentation in law: four pragmadialectical starting points'. In: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Special Fields and Cases, Vol. IV, Amsterdam: Sic Sat, p. 138–145.
Klug, U. (1951). Juristische Logik. Berlin: Springer.
MacCormick, N. (1978). Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacCormick, N. (1992). ‘Legal deduction, legal predicates and expert systems'. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, Vol. V, No. 14, p. 181–202.
MacCormick, D.N., R.S. Summers (eds.) (1991). Interpreting statutes. A comparative study. Aldershot etc.: Dartmouth.
Peczenik, A. (1983). The basis of legal justification. Lund.
Peczenik, A. (1989). On law and reason. Dordrecht etc.: Reidel.
Perelman, Ch., L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation. Bruxelles: l'Université de Bruxelles.
Perelman, Ch. (1976). Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Dalloz.
Plug, H.J. (1994). ‘Reconstructing complex argumentation in judicial decisions'. In: F.H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, p. 246–255.
Plug, H.J. (1995). ‘The rational reconstruction of additional considerations in judicial decisions'. In: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard(eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Vol. IV Special Fields and Cases, Amsterdam: Sic Sat, p. 61–72.
Soeteman, A. (1989). Logic in law. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinberger, O. (1970). Rechtslogik. Versuch einer Anwendung moderner Logik auf das juristische Denken. Wien etc.: Springer.
Wróblewski, J. (1974). ‘Legal syllogism and rationality of judicial decision'. Rechtstheorie, Band 14, Nr. 5, p. 33–46.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Feteris, E.T. (1996). The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds) Practical Reasoning. FAPR 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1085. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_70
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_70
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61313-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68454-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive