Skip to main content
Log in

A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper answers the question how pragmatic argumentation which occurs in a legal context, can be analyzed and evaluated adequately. First, the author surveys various ideas taken from argumentation theory and legal theory on the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation. Then, on the basis of these ideas, she develops a pragma-dialectical instrument for analyzing and evaluating pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Finally she demonstrates how this instrument can be used by giving an exemplary analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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, Oxford (translation of Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, G.E.M.: 1957, Intention, Blackwell.

  • Aristotele: 1980, The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated with an introduction by David Ross, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.: 1983, Policy Arguments in Judicial Decisions, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R.: 1978, Taking Rights Seriously (Eerste druk 1977), Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R.: 1986, Law's Empire, Fontana, London.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, M.: 1984, Legal Reasoning, Knofp, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R.E. and Ph. Pettit: 1993, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Blackwell, ambridge (Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieh, G.: 1968, The Logic of Choice: An Investigation of the Concepts of Rule and Rationality, Allen and Unwin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R.M.: 1952, The Language of Morals, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, A.: 1962, A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation, Dissertation Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N.: 1995, ‘Argumentatio and Interpretation in Law’, Argumentation 9(3), 467–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N.: 1983, ‘Legal Decisions and their Consequences: From Dewey to Dworkin’, N.Y. University Law Review 58, 239–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccormick, N. and R. Summers: 1991, Interpreting Statutes, Dartmouth, Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, N. and O. Weinberger: 1986, An Institutional Theory of Law, Reidel, Dordrechts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame/London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P.: 1991, ‘Analytical Philosophy’, in Goodin and Pettit (eds), pp. 7–38.

  • Scheffler, S. (ed.): 1988, Consequentialism and its Critics.

  • Schellens, P.J.: 1984, Redlijke argumenten. Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers (Reasonable Argument. An Investigation into Norms for Critical Readers). Phd. Dissertation Utrecht. Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snoeck Henkemas, A.F.: 1992, Analysing Complex Argumentation. The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion, SicSat, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, R.S.: 1978, ‘Two Types of Substantive Reasons: The Core of a Theory of Common-Law Justification’, Cornell Law Review 63, 707–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S.: 1950, The Place or Reason in Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twining, W. and D. Miers: 1991, How to Do Things with Rules. A Primer of Interpretation, Butterworths, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N.: 1990, Practical Reasoning, Rowman & Littlefield, Savage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N.: 1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G.H. von: 1963, Norm and Action, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Wright, G.H. von: 1972, ‘On So-called Practical Inference’. Acta Sociologica 15, 39–53

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feteris, E.T. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context. Argumentation 16, 349–367 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019999606665

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019999606665

Navigation