Abstract
In my contribution I present an analysis of the strategic maneuvering in the decision of the Dutch Supreme Court in the famous case of the ‘Unworthy Spouse’. An analysis of the strategic maneuvering in this case can clarify which discussion strategy is used by the Dutch Supreme Court in the context of an implicit difference of opinion between the lower court and the Supreme Court about the role of legal principles. To explain how the Supreme Court operates, in my analysis I use the concept of ‘strategic maneuvering’ as developed by van Eemeren (van Eemeren FH, Strategic manoeuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2010) and van Eemeren and Houtlosser (Argumentation 20:377–380, 2006; van Eemeren FH, Houtlosser P, Seizing the occasion: parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. In: van Eemeren FH, Blair JA, Willard Ch.A, Garssen B (ed) Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 375–381, 2007), which forms part of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation described in the contribution by Harm Kloosterhuis in this volume.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Cf. The case of Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506, 22 N.E. 188 (1889) discussed by Dworkin (1986:15–20) as an example of a systematic interpretation of the law of inheritance with the aim of clarifying the underlying legal principles.
- 2.
See the relevant parts of the text of the decision of the court of appeal and the Supreme Court in 2A and 2B at the end of this contribution.
- 3.
See also the comments of the annotator E.A.A. Langemeijer with regard to this view on the way the Supreme Court operates in using the legal principles as supporting argumentation for the exception on the basis of reasonableness and fairness. The annotator states that the Court of Appeal already considered the two legal principles as sufficient reasons to deny L. his claim, and is of the opinion that also reasonableness and fairness points in the same direction. In the view of the annotator the Supreme Court takes its ‘own way’. He characterizes the way the Supreme Court operates in giving the legal principles a subordinate role as the ‘safe way’ because it gives more space for considering the circumstances of the specific case. The annotator is of the opinion that it corresponds with the line already taken in other decisions by the Supreme Court.
- 4.
- 5.
For an overview of the relevant legal rules see 1 at the end of this contribution.
- 6.
See for a general discussion of the dialectical reconstruction of argumentative relations in the justification of legal decisions Plug (1990).
- 7.
See for a discussion of these principles van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1991, 1992), van Eemeren 2010.
- 8.
For a pragmatic analysis of the commitments that are incurred when performing certain speech acts in the context of a legal procedure in terms of the theory of Brandom see Canale and Tuzet (2009).
- 9.
- 10.
On the basis of article 419, 2 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure the Supreme Court must depart from the facts that have been established by lower judges.
- 11.
For the relevant passages of the decision see 2A, and for a more extensive dialectical analysis see 3A at the end of this contribution.
- 12.
For the relevant passages of the decision see 2B, and for a more extensive dialectical analysis see 3B at the end of this contribution.
- 13.
In the procedure in cassation the Supreme Court has no space to maneuver strategically in the legal counterpart of the confrontation stage because the plaintiff in cassation defines the difference of opinion in the cassation grounds.
- 14.
At the moment of this case it was article 48 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.
- 15.
In 1999 the Dutch law of inheritance has been changed. The articles from book 3 and 4 that are applicable in this case have been changed. In 1 at the end of this contribution the relevant articles are given.
References
Canale, D., and G. Tuzet. 2009. Inferring the ratio: Commitments and constraints. In Argumentation and the application of legal rules, ed. E.T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, and H.J. Plug, 7–14. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s empire. London: Fontana.
Feteris, E.T. 1989. Discussieregels in het recht. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van het burgerlijk proces en het strafproces. (Discussion rules in law. A pragma-dialectical analysis of the dutch civil process and criminal process). Dissertation Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Foris.
Feteris, E.T. 2008. Strategic maneuvering with the intention of the legislator in the justification of judicial decisions. Argumentation 22: 335–353.
Feteris, E.T. 2009a. Strategic manoeuvring in the justification of judicial decisions. In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic manoeuvering, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 93–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Feteris, E.T. 2009b. Strategic manoeuvring with linguistic arguments in the justification of legal decisions. In Proceedings of the Second Conference Rhetoric in Society, Leiden University, 22–23 Jan 2009. (cd-rom).
Feteris, E.T. 2011. Strategic maneuvering in the case of the “Unworthy Spouse”. In Exploring argumentative contexts, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, B.J. Garssen, 149–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kloosterhuis, H. 2006. Reconstructing interpretative argumentation in legal decisions. A pragma-dialectical approach. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Plug, H.J. 1990. In onderlinge samenhang bezien. De pragma-dialectische reconstructie van complexe argumentatie in rechterlijke uitspraken. Dissertation Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic manoeuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1991. The study of argumentation from a speech act perspective. In Pragmatics at issue. Selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, ed. J. Verschueren, Antwerp, August 17–22, 1987. Volume I (pp. 141–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2006. Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20: 377–380.
van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2007. Seizing the occasion: Parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard, and B. Garssen, 375–381. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Feteris, E.T. (2013). Strategic Maneuvering with the Argumentative Role of Legal Principles in the Case of the “Unworthy Spouse”. In: Dahlman, C., Feteris, E. (eds) Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 102. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4670-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4670-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4669-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4670-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)