16 found
Order:
See also
Eveline Feteris
University of Amsterdam
  1.  12
    Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline T. Feteris - 2017 - Springer Verlag.
    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 (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  2.  57
    A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context.Eveline T. Feteris - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (3):349-367.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  3.  38
    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.
    In this paper, the author develops an instrument for the rational reconstruction of argumentation in which a judicial decision is justified by referring to the consequences in relation to the purpose of the rule. The instrument is developed by integrating insights from legal theory and legal philosophy about the function and use of arguments from consequences in relation to the purpose of a rule into a pragma-dialectical framework. Then, by applying the instrument to the analysis of examples from legal practice, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  4.  22
    Strategic Maneuvering with the Intention of the Legislator in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline T. Feteris - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):335-353.
    The author gives an analysis of the strategic manoeuvring in the justification of legal decisions from a pragma-dialectical perspective by showing how a judge tries to reconcile dialectical and rhetorical aims. On the basis of an analysis and evaluation of the argumentation given by the US Supreme Court in the famous Holy Trinity case, it is shown how in a case in which the judge wants to make an exception to a legal rule for the concrete case tries to meet (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  5.  19
    The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Teleological Argumentation in a Legal Context.Eveline T. Feteris - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (4):489-506.
    In this article the author develops a framework for a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of teleological argumentation in a legal context. Ideas taken from legal theory are integrated in a pragma-dialectical model for analyzing and evaluating argumentation, thus providing a more systematic and elaborate framework for assessing the quality of teleological arguments in a legal context. Teleological argumentation in a legal context is approached as a specific form of pragmatic argumentation. The legal criteria that are relevant for the evaluation of teleological argumentation (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  6.  92
    A Dialogical Theory of Legal Discussions:Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Legalargumentation.Eveline T. Feteris - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):115-135.
    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.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7.  37
    The Rational Reconstruction of Weighing and Balancing on the Basis of Teleological-Evaluative Considerations in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline T. Feteris - 2008 - Ratio Juris 21 (4):481-495.
    In this contribution the author develops an argumentation model for the reconstruction of weighing and balancing on the basis of teleological-evaluative considerations. The model is intended as a heuristic and critical tool for the rational reconstruction of the justification of judicial decisions. From the perspective of a rational discussion, it makes explicit the choices underlying the weighing and balancing on the basis of goals and values so that they can be made explicit and submitted to rational critique.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  8.  21
    The Role of the Judge in Legal Proceedings: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis.Eveline T. Feteris - 2012 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (2):234-252.
    In this contribution I characterize the role of the judge in the context of the argumentative activity of legal proceeding. I describe the role of the judge from a pragma-dialectical perspective and explain in which way this role promotes a rational resolution of the dispute. I specify how a critical discussion in accordance with the ideal model is implemented in legal procedure to accomplish the institutional point, a resolution of the dispute in accordance with the Rule of Law.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9.  19
    Recent Developments in Legal Argumentation Theory: Dialectical Approaches to Legal Argumentation.Eveline T. Feteris - 1994 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 7 (2):133-153.
  10.  25
    The Rationality of Legal Discourse in Habermas's Discourse Theory.Eveline T. Feteris - 2003 - Informal Logic 23 (2):139-159.
    This paper argues that Habermas's conception of the rationality of moral and legal discussions has import for argumentation theorists interested in the rationality of public deliberations in politics and law. I begin with a survey of Haber mas's discourse theory and his criteria of rationality for moral and legal discourse. I then explain why, in his view, the forms of rational discourse in morality and law complement each other. My aim is to show how Habermas's account of this complementary relationship (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  11.  19
    Editor's Introduction.Eveline T. Feteris & Janice Schuetz - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):689-692.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  12.  27
    A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Legal Discussions.Eveline T. Feteris - 1993 - Informal Logic 15 (3).
  13.  18
    The Rational Reconstruction of Complex Forms of Legal Argumentation: Approaches From Artificial Intelligence and Law and Pragma-Dialectics. [REVIEW]Eveline T. Feteris - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):393-400.
  14.  9
    The Identification of Prototypical Argumentative Patterns in the Justification of Judicial Decisions.Eveline T. Feteris - 2017 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 6 (1):44-58.
    In this contribution I identify prototypical patterns in the justification of judicial decisions. From a pragma-dialectical perspective, I explain the nature and rationale for the argumentative patterns from the perspective of the institutional function of legal justification and I distinguish different argumentative patterns in clear cases and hard cases in the justification of judicial decisions.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15.  7
    Millgram, Elijah (Ed.), Varieties of Practical Reasoning (2001).Eveline T. Feteris - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (2):251-255.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. Models for the Analysis of Legal Argumentation: Introduction.Eveline T. Feteris - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (1):1-5.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark