Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 459–470 | Cite as

The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

  • Eveline T. FeterisEmail author
Article

Abstract

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, it is demonstrated that the instrument can offer a heuristic and critical tool for the analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation that can ‘bridge’ the gap between more abstract discussions of forms of legal argumentation on the one hand, and legal arguments as they occur in actual legal practice on the other hand.

Keywords

consequentialist argumentation legal argumentation legal interpretation legal reasoning teleological interpretation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexy, R. 1989A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal JustificationClarendon PressOxford(Translation of Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1978).Google Scholar
  2. Bell, J. 1983Policy Arguments in Judicial DecisionsClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Burg, E.: 2000, The Model of Principles, Dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Dworkin,  1986Law’s EmpireFontanaLondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. 1992Argumentation, Communication and FallaciesErlbaumHillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. 2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical ApproachCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Eskridge, W. N.,Jr. 1994Dynamic Statutory InterpretationHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Feteris, E. T. 1999Fundamentals of Legal ArgumentationKluwerDordrechtetc.Google Scholar
  9. Feteris, E. T. 2002aA Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal ContextArgumentation16 349367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feteris, E. T.: 2002b, ‘The Role of Arguments from Consequences in Practical Argumentation in a Legal Context’, in H. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson and R. C. Pinto (eds.), Argumentation and its Applications, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (CD-rom).Google Scholar
  11. Feteris, E. T.: 2003, ‘The Rational Reconstruction of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context: The Analysis and Evaluation of Teleological Argumentation’, in F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair and C. W. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Sicsat, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. Feteris, E. T.: 2004, ‘Arguments from Unacceptable Consequences and a Reasonable Application of Law’, in J. A. Blair, D. Farr, H. V. Hansen, R. H. Johnson and C. W. Tindale (eds.), Informal Logic@25, OSSA, Windsor, ON (CD-rom).Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, L.: 1948, ‘The Case of the Speluncean Explorers’ law’, Harvard Law Review, 62.Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, L. 1958Positivism and the Fidelity to Law – A Reply to Professor HartHarvard Law Review71630672Google Scholar
  15. Golding, M. 1984Legal ReasoningKnopfNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Gottlieb, G. 1968The Logic of Choice: An Investigation of the Concepts of Rule and RationalityAllen and UnwinLondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Lyons, D. 1993Moral Aspects of Legal Theory. Essays on Law, Justice, and Political ResponsibilityCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. MacCormick, D. N. 1978Legal Reasoning and Legal TheoryClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. MacCormick, N., Summers, R. S. 1991Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative StudyDartmouthAldershot etcGoogle Scholar
  20. Nozick, R. 1993The Nature of RationalityPrinceton University PressPrincetonGoogle Scholar
  21. Peczenik, A. 1989On Law and ReasonKluwerDordrecht etc.Google Scholar
  22. Pontier, J. A., Burg, E. 2004EU Principles on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters According to the Case Law of the European Court of JusticeAsser PressThe HagueGoogle Scholar
  23. Summers, R. S 1978Two Types of Substantive Reasons: The Core of a Theory of Common-Law justificationCornell Law Review63707788Google Scholar
  24. Wróblewski, J.: 1992, The Judicial Application of Law, (Edited by Zenon Bankowski and Neil MacCormick), Kluwer, Dordrecht etc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and RhetoricUniversity of AmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations