The subject of this study are the argumentation strategies applied by the Polish and German apex courts competent in criminal matters, namely the Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Justice, respectively. The investigation encompasses a total of 200 rulings issued by the criminal panels of these bodies. Particular focus was put on examining which arguments both courts apply to solve interpretation problems, and secondly, how these courts systematize the interpretation process. Methodologically, the examination utilizes, inter alia, the principles of qualitative research, without neglecting the legal dogmatic perspective. A crucial theoretical foundation underlying this study is the distinction between formalistic and substantive legal cultures. The examination reveals that neither the Polish nor the German legal culture is purely formalistic or value-oriented. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Poland shows greater affinity for formalistic arguments, whereas the substantive interpretation methods are more widespread in the judicature of the German Federal Court of Justice. In particular, the Polish Court prefers the linguistic interpretation, whereas the German Court favours the purposive approach.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11196-021-09843-9
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,231
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

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.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Comparative Law as an Element of Reasoning.Hubertus Schumacher - 2019 - In Knut Almestad, Jean-Luc Baechler, Benedikt Bogason, Henrik Bull, Francis Delaporte, Luis José Diez Canseco Núñez, Peter Freeman, Vladimir Golitsyn, Irmgard Griss, Marc Jaeger, Koen Lenaerts, Paul Mahoney, Andreas Mundt, Sven Norberg, Toril Marie Øie, Þorgeir Örlygsson, Anne-José Paulsen, Georges Ravarani, Hubertus Schumacher, Vassilios Skouris, Gian-Flurin Steinegger, Sven Erik Svedman, Antonio Tizzano, Marc van der Woude, Bo Vesterdorf & Jean-Claude Wiwinius (eds.), The Art of Judicial Reasoning: Festschrift in Honour of Carl Baudenbacher. Springer Verlag.
The Rehnquist Legacy.Craig Bradley (ed.) - 2005 - Cambridge University Press.
Judicial Development of the Criminal Law by the Supreme Court.Findlay Stark - 2021 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 41 (1):1-29.
Can Informative Traffic Signs Also Be Obligatory? Polish Constitutional Tribunal and Supreme Court Versus Traffic Signs.Michał Dudek - 2018 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 31 (4):771-785.
An Ethical Evaluation of the Supreme Court Decision Regarding ERISA Interpretation.Kristin Lefebvre - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):327-334.


Added to PP index

Total views
3 ( #1,362,404 of 2,518,449 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #408,186 of 2,518,449 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes