•  124
    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.
  •  86
    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 givi…Read more
  •  52
    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 fro…Read more
  •  48
    In this contribution the prototypical argumentative patterns are discussed in which pragmatic argumentation is used in the context of legal justification in hard cases. First, the function and implementation of pragmatic argumentation in prototypical argumentative patterns in legal justification are addressed. The dialectical function of the different parts of the complex argumentation are explained by characterizing them as argumentative moves that are put forward in reaction to certain forms o…Read more
  •  47
    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 consist…Read more
  •  46
    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 sp…Read more
  •  42
    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 r…Read more
  •  39
    A Survey of 25 Years of Research on Legal Argumentation
    Argumentation 11 (3): 355-376. 1997.
    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 empiricalc…Read more
  •  37
    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 rel…Read more
  •  33
    Bibliography Argumentation Studies 1998
    with R. Grootendorst and P. Houtlosser
    Argumentation 14 (2): 181-193. 2000.
  •  31
    Bibliography Argumentation Studies 1997
    Argumentation 13 (2): 221-232. 1999.
  •  28
    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…Read more
  •  27
    Bibliography Argumentation Studies 2001
    with P. Houtlosser
    Argumentation 17 (4): 537-560. 2003.
  •  27
    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 leg…Read more
  •  27
    Bibliography Argumentation Studies 1996
    with R. Grootendorst and P. Houtlosser
    Argumentation 12 (3): 407-420. 1998.
  •  26
    Introduction: Dialectical legal argument: Formal and informal models (review)
    with Henry Prakken
    Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3): 107-113. 2000.
  •  26
    Bibliography Argumentation Studies 1995
    with R. Grootendorst and P. Houtlosser
    Argumentation 11 (2): 237-258. 1997.
  •  25
    Bibliography Argumentation Studies 1999
    with P. Houtlosser
    Argumentation 15 (3): 347-362. 2001.
  •  23
    The role of the judge in legal proceedings: A Pragma-dialectical analysis
    Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (2): 234-252. 2012.
    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.
  •  21
    Editor's introduction
    with Janice Schuetz
    Argumentation 9 (5): 689-692. 1995.
  •  20
    Bibliography Argumentation Studies 2000
    with P. Houtlosser
    Argumentation 16 (2): 231-246. 2002.
  •  10