Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions
Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer Verlag (2017)
Abstract
Aulis Aarnio addresses the question of how legal interpretations should be justified. Aarnio considers a justification to be rational only if the justification process has been conducted in a rational way, and if the final result of this process is acceptable to the legal community. According to Aarnio, a theory concerning the justification of legal interpretations should contain a procedural component specifying the conditions of rationality for legal discussions, and a substantial component specifying the material conditions of acceptability for the final result. The procedural component of Aarnio’s theory formulates rules for the rationality of legal discussions. The substantial component specifies when the result of a legal interpretation can be called acceptable. Aarnio considers such a result acceptable if it is acceptable to a particular legal community in which there is consensus with respect to certain norms and values.Author's Profile
Reprint years
1999, 2018
ISBN(s)
9402414932 9789402411270 978-94-024-1129-4 978-94-024-1127-0 0792355849 9402411275 9048151759 9789402414936 9402411283
DOI
10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Chapters
Epilogue: Main Trends in Research of Legal Argumentation
Research of legal argumentation concentrates on the justification of judicial decisions. The central question is how legal decisions can be justified in a rational way and what the soundness conditions are that such a rational justification should meet. In various disciplines, theories of legal argu... see more
MacCormick’s Theory of the Justification of Legal Decisions
In his theory of legal justification Neil MacCormick tries to formulate a solution for one of the central problems in modern legal theory. He explains how, in so-called hard cases in which a judge cannot rely on a generally accepted existing rule, a legal decision can be justified rationally. MacCor... see more
Habermas’s Discourse Theory and the Rationality of Legal Discourse
This chapter discusses the relation between Jürgen Habermas’s discourse theory and the rationality of legal discourse. In his discourse theory, Habermas sets out the conditions a rational discussion is required to meet. In the legal part of his theory on argumentation, Habermas describes how the rat... see more
Peczenik’s Theory of Legal Transformations and Legal Justification
In his theory of legal transformations, Peczenik tries to answer the question of how a legal decision can be justified rationally. To justify a legal decision, according to Peczenik, it must be shown that the decision can be justified, not only on legal grounds, but also on general rational grounds.... see more
The Logical Approach of Legal Argumentation
In a logical approach of legal argumentation the central focus is on the role of formal validity as a criterion of rationality for legal argumentation. Various logical systems have been developed to analyse and evaluate legal argumentation. This chapter explains the role and the importance of formal... see more
Perelman’s New Rhetoric
This chapter discusses Perelman’s New Rhetoric and its application in a legal context in the form of a legal logic. In his New Rhetoric Perelman describes the argumentative techniques a speaker can use to convince his audience. In his application of the general New Rhetoric in his legal logic, Perel... see more
The Pragma-Dialectical Approach of Legal Argumentation
This chapter gives an overview of the pragma-dialectical approach to legal argumentation. The chapter provides a summary of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and describes developments in the application of the theory to the legal context. It characterizes legal justification as an argu... see more
Legal Argumentation and Legal Interpretation
As an introduction to the discussion of theories of legal justification in the following chapters, this chapter discusses the central topics in the literature on interpretation and application of legal rules in particular, and the law in general. The central focus of this introduction is on the disc... see more
A Survey of Approaches and Studies of Legal Argumentation in the Context of Legal Justification in Different Legal Systems and Countries
In the preceding chapters, several of the most important theories of legal argumentation have been examined. Apart from these theories in which a more or less complete account of legal argumentation is developed, there have also been studies of legal argumentation in which the development of a theor... see more
Toulmin’s Argumentation Model
This chapter discusses Toulmin’s argumentation model and its application in a legal context. In the introduction of his argumentation model, Toulmin uses the legal process to show that the acceptability of practical argumentation does not depend on logical validity. Comparing the process of practica... see more
Aarnio’s Theory of the Justification of Legal Interpretations
Aulis Aarnio addresses the question of how legal interpretations should be justified. Aarnio considers a justification to be rational only if the justification process has been conducted in a rational way, and if the final result of this process is acceptable to the legal community. According to Aar... see more
Alexy’s Procedural Theory of Legal Argumentation
This chapter discusses Alexy’s theory of legal argumentation. The central question in the work on legal argumentation of Robert Alexy is how normative statements, such as legal decisions, can be justified in a rational way. Alexy considers the process of justification of normative statements as a pr... see more
Similar books and articles
The Reasonable as Rational? On Legal Argumentation and Justification : Festschrift for Aulis Aarnio.Aulis Aarnio & Werner Krawietz - 2000
The Pragma-Dialectical Reconstruction of Teleological-Evaluative Argumentation in Complex Structures of Legal Justification.Eveline Feteris - unknown
Eveline T. Feteris, Fundamental of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories of Justification of Judicial Decisions (1999). [REVIEW]William Twining - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (2):223-229.
DiaLaw. On legal justification and dialogical models of argumentation.Arno R. Lodder - 1999 - Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Prototypical Argumentative Patterns in a Legal Context: The Role of Pragmatic Argumentation in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline Feteris - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (1):61-79.
Strategic Maneuvering with the Intention of the Legislator in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline T. Feteris - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):335-353.
Argumentation in ethics, legal dogmatics and legal practice.Aleksander Peczenik - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):747-756.
Weighing and Balancing in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline Feteris - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (1):20-30.
The rational reconstruction of argumentation referring to consequences and purposes in the application of legal rules: A pragma-dialectical perspective.Eveline T. Feteris - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):459-470.
The Rationality of Legal Discourse in Habermas's Discourse Theory.Eveline T. Feteris - 2003 - Informal Logic 23 (2):139-159.
Argumentation from Reasonableness in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline Feteris - 2015 - In Christian Dahlman & Thomas Bustamante (eds.), Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation. Springer Verlag.
Analytics
Added to PP
2019-01-25
Downloads
31 (#378,942)
6 months
3 (#225,062)
2019-01-25
Downloads
31 (#378,942)
6 months
3 (#225,062)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): pp. 769-777.
The Irish Public Discourse on Covid-19 at the Intersection of Legislation, Fake News and Judicial Argumentation.Davide Mazzi - 2022 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 35 (3):1233-1252.
Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.David M. Godden & Douglas Walton - 2006 - Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
Corpus Linguistics in Legal Discourse.Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski - 2021 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 34 (5):1515-1540.
E contrario reasoning: The dilemma of the silent legislator.Henrike Jansen - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):485-496.
