1. Harm Kloosterhuis (2008). The Strategic Use of Formal Argumentation in Legal Decisions. Ratio Juris 21 (4):496-506.
    In legal decisions standpoints can be supported by formal and also by substantive interpretative arguments. Formal arguments consist of reasons the weight or force of which is essentially dependent on the authoritativeness that the reasons may also have: In this connection one may think of linguistic and systemic arguments. On the other hand, substantive arguments are not backed up by authority, but consist of a direct invocation of moral, political, economic, or other social considerations. Formal arguments can be analyzed as (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Harm Kloosterhuis (2005). Reconstructing Complex Analogy Argumentation in Judicial Decisions: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 19 (4):471-483.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Harm Kloosterhuis (2000). Analogy Argumentation in Law: A Dialectical Perspective. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):173-187.
    In this paper I investigate the similarities betweenthe dialectical procedure in the pragma-dialecticaltheory and dialectical procedures in AI and Law. I dothis by focusing on one specific type of reasoning inlaw: analogy argumentation. I will argue that analogyargumentation is not only a heuristic forfinding new premises, but also a part of thejustification of legal decisions. The relevantcriteria for the evaluation of analogy argumentationare not to be found at the logical level of inference,but at the procedural level of the discussion. I (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation