Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A dialogical theory of legal discussions:Pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of legalargumentation

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, the author describes a dialogical approach tolegal argumentation from the perspective of argumentationtheory. In a pragma-dialectical approach of legalargumentation, the argumentation is considered to be part of acritical discussion aimed at the rational resolution of thedispute. The author describes how a pragma-dialecticalanalysis and evaluation of legal argumentation can be carriedout.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexy, R. 1989. A Theory of Legal Argumentation.The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Clarendon Press, Oxford. (Translation of Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. (1978).)

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van 1987. ‘Argumentation studies' five estates’. In Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices.Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Speech Communication Association, Annandale (VA), pp. 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Erlbaum, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, Feteris, E. T., Grootendorst, R., van Haaften, T., den Harder, W., Kloosterhuis, H., Kruiger, T., Plug, J. 1991. Argumenteren voor juristen.Het analyseren en schrijven van juridische betogen en beleidsteksten. (Argumentation for lawyers) (second edition, first edition 1987) Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies.A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. 1987. ‘The dialectical role of the judge in a Dutch legal process’. In J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices.Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Speech Communication Association, Annandale (VA), pp. 335–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. 1989. Discussieregels in het recht.Een pragma-dialectische analyse van het burgerlijk proces en het strafproces. Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. 1990. ‘Conditions and rules for rational discussion in a legal process: A pragmadialectical perspective’. Argumentation and Advocacy.Journal of the American Forensic Association 26(3), 108–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. 1991. ‘Normative reconstruction of legal discussions’. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, June 19–22 1990. SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 768–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. 1993a. ‘The judge as a critical antagonist in a legal process: a pragma-dialectical perspective’. In R. E. McKerrow (ed.), Argument and the Postmodern Challenge.Proceedings of the Eighth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Speech Communication Association, tAnnandale, pp. 476–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. 1993b. ‘Rationality in legal discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective’. Informal Logic XV(3), 179–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. 1994a. ‘Recent developments in legal argumentation theory: dialectical approaches to legal argumentation’. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, VII(20), 134–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. 1994b. Redelijkheid in juridische argumentatie.Een overzicht van theorieën over het rechtvaardigen van juridische beslissingen. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, and Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. IV, pp. 42–51.

  • Feteris, E. T. 1997a. ‘The analysis and evaluation of argumentation in Dutch criminal proceedings from a pragma-dialectical perspective’. In J. F. Nijboer and J. M. Reijntjes (eds.), Proceedings of the First World Conference on New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence, Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, pp. 57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. 1997b. ‘De deugdelijkheid van pragmatische argumentatie: heiligt het doel de middelen?’. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier (eds.), Op goede gronden.Bijdragen aan het Tweede Symposium Juridische Argumentatie. Ars Aequi, Nijmegen, pp. 98–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. (1998).'The soundness of ‘pragmatic’ or ‘consequentialist’ argumentation: does the end justify the means?’. In H. Hansen and C. Tindale (eds.), Proceedings of the OSSA Conference on Argumentation and Rhetoric.

  • Gordon, Th. F. 1995. The Pleadings Game, an Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C. 1996. ‘A model of legal reasoning and a logic to match’. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3–4), 199–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaften, T. van 1997. ‘Over de status van taalkundige argumenten in juridische betogen’. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier (eds.), Op goede gronden.Bijdragen aan het Tweede Symposium Juridische Argumentatie. Ars Aequi, Nijmegen, pp. 90–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C. 1997. Reasoning with Rules. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C., Span, G. P. J., and Lodder, A. R. 1992.’ A dialogical model of legal reasoning', In C. A. F. M. Grütters et al. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems, Information Technology and Law. JURIX’ 92. Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, pp. 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage, J. C., Leenes, R., and Lodder, A. 1994. ‘Hard cases; a procedural approach’. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 113–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, H. 1997. ‘Voorwaarden voor aanvaardbare a contrario-argumentatie’. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier (eds.), Op goede gronden.Bijdragen aan het Tweede Symposium Juridische Argumentatie. Ars Aequi, Nijmegen, pp. 123–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloosterhuis, H. 1994. ‘Analysing analogy argumentation in judicial decisions’. In F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-dialectics. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 238–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloosterhuis, H. 1995. ‘The study of analogy argumentation in law: Four pragma-dialectical starting points’. In F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation.Special Fields and Cases, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 138–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloosterhuis, H. 1996. ‘The normative reconstruction of analogy argumentation in judicial decisions: a pragma-dialectical perspective’. In D. M. Gabbay and H. J. Ohlbach (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp. 375–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. P. and Norman, J. 1995. ‘Rationales and argument moves’. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3(3), pp. 159–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. 1978. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 262–263

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. and Summers, R. 1991. Interpreting Statutes. Darthmouth, Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plug, H. J. 1994. ‘Reconstructing complex argumentation in judicial decisions’. In F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-dialectics. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 246–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plug, H. J. 1995. ‘The rational reconstruction of additional considerations in judicial decisions’. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and Ch.A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation.Special Fields and Cases, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plug, H. J. 1996 ‘Complex argumentation in judicial decisions. Analysing conflicting arguments’. In D. M. Gabbay and H. J. Ohlbach (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp. 464–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. 1993. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Dissertation. Amsterdam.

  • Prakken, H. 1995. ‘From logic to dialectics in legal argument’. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, pp. 165–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. 1997. ‘Logica, debat en procedure in juridische argumentatie’. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier (eds.), Op goede gronden.Bijdragen aan het Tweede Symposium Juridische Argumentatie. Ars Aequi, Nijmegen, pp. 132–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1996. ‘A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning’. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3/4), 331–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartor, G. 1994. ‘A formal model of legal argumentation’. Ratio Juris 7, 177–211.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Speech Communication, ArgumentationTheory and RhetoricE-mail, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Eveline T. Feteris

Authors
  1. Eveline T. Feteris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feteris, E.T. A dialogical theory of legal discussions:Pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of legalargumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8, 115–135 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008344203269

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008344203269

Search

Navigation