Eveline Feteris

Linguistic argumentation, using the meaning of the wording in a statutory norm, often plays an important role in the justification of interpretative standpoints in legal decisions. In legal theory, the use of linguistic argumentation is often discussed, but the reconstruction of the use of this argumentation in light of the different evaluation criteria has not received much attention yet. In order to provide clues for this reconstruction we will answer two related questions: which norms apply for the use of linguistic argumentation and which uses of linguistic argumentation can be distinguished based on these norms. We start with a pragma-dialectical framework for the analysis of linguistic argumentation, based on a dialogical application of MacCormick and Summers’ model for the interpretation of statutes. Given this framework, we will give an overview of the different forms of linguistic argumentation in the justification of interpretative standpoints. We will specify the justificatory function of linguistic argumentation in complex structures and we will distinguish four forms. For each form, we specify the norms for an acceptable use. For each form, we explain with an example in which discussion context such a form is used and how courts refer to the norms for an acceptable use.

Modern legal systems are characterized by a tension between two commonplaces: the Rule of Law on the one hand, and the arguable character of law on the other. The Rule of Law calls for legal certainty, predictability and reasonableness; the argumentative character of law implies room for rational disagreement. In this book, expert scholars come together to offer interdisciplinary approaches to debate this tension and its possible reconciliation. Central in their perspective is that reconciliation is possible when the Rule of Law also incorporates rules for reason-giving. Reason-giving should be part of a substantive conception of the Rule of Law. Requiring that legal decision-makers give reasons furthers reasonable outcomes. The analysis of the ideal of rational argumentation and the ideal of the Rule of Law show how insights of two traditions are connected. This collection of essays includes contributions from law, argumentation theory, logic and philosophical perspectives. This multifaceted approach demonstrates the variety of questions that emerge at the intersection of both commonplaces. This volume fills a remarkable void in the current literature on the Rule of Law. It should be welcomed, not only by experts in Legal Methodology, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, but by judges, lawyers and law students as well. [Subject: Constitutional Law, Legal Theory, Civil Law]

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.

This paper addresses a specific form of argumentation, pragmatic argumentation, in which a certain action, choice or decision is justified by referring to the favourable consequences of the action. The paper starts with a survey of the ideas on legal argumentation developed in argumentation theory, analytical philosophy and legal theory. The various ideas are brought together in a pragma-dialectical perspective in order to give a systematic survey of the various conceptions of pragmatic argumentation and to decide which further lines of research must be developed.

This essay discusses the developments and trends of research in legalargumentation of the last 25 years. The essay starts with a survey of thevarious approaches which can be distinguished: the logical approach, therhetorical approach, and the dialogical approach. Then it identifies varioustopics in the research, which constitute the various components of aresearch programme of legal argumentation: the philosophical component, thetheoretical component, the reconstruction component, the empiricalcomponent, and the practical component. It concludes with a discussion ofthe main trends in the research of the last 25 years

In legal theory, it is widely claimed that decisions in hard cases are based on weighing and balancing. However no reconstructions are given of the deep structure of the complex argumentation underlying the justification of these decisions. The author develops a model for the analysis of weighing and balancing of arguments in the justification of judicial decisions that are based on teleological-evaluative considerations. The justification is reconstructed as a complex argumentation that consists of different levels of argumentation and it is explained how these levels of argumentation relate to the burden of proof of a judge who gives a decision that is based on a weighing and balancing in which teleological-evaluative considerations are invoked

I give a pragma-dialectical reconstruction of the role of teleological-evaluative argumentation referring to goals and values in the justification of judicial decisions. I establish the role and place of this form of argumentation in complex forms of justification in which the argumentation interacts with other forms of legal argumentation. I will do this by integrating the insights from legal theory and legal philosophy into a pragma-dialectical framework for the analysis and evaluation of argumentation.

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

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.

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 the dialectical reasonableness norm by seeing to it that his standpoint is sufficiently defended according to the requirements of the burden of proof of a judge in a rational critical discussion and how he tries at the same time to be rhetorically convincing for the legal audience by presenting the decision as a choice that is in line with the argumentation schemes and starting points that can be considered as accepted by the legal community in the US and by the US community as a whole