Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 197–211 | Cite as

Legal Facts in Argumentation-Based Litigation Games

  • Minghui Xiong
  • Frank Zenker
Article

Abstract

This paper analyzes legal fact-argumentation in the framework of the argumentation-based litigation game (ALG) by Xiong (Leg Sci 370(9):16–19, 2012). Rather than as an ontological one, an ALG treats a legal fact as a fact-qua-claim whose acceptability depends on the reasons supporting it. In constructing their facts-qua-claims, parties to an ALG must interact to maintain a game-theoretic equilibrium. We compare the general interactional constraints that the civil (a.k.a. ‘continental’) and common law systems assign, and detail what the civil, administrative, and criminal codes of mainland China require of the suitor (S), the respondent (R), and the trier (T) to establish their respective S-, R- and T-facts. We also offer an improved version of the legal syllogism.

Keywords

Legal fact Argumentation-based litigation game Legal syllogism Legal five-part argument Fact-qua-claim Fact-argumentation Equilibrium 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author acknowledges funding from the Chinese MOE Projects for Key University Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences (No. 15JJD720014), the National Social Science Fund of China (No. 13AZX0017), and a Guangdong Province Pearl River Distinguished Professorship (2013). The second author acknowledges an “Understanding China”-Fellowship from the Confucius Institute (HANBAN), and funding through the European Union’s FP 7 framework program (No. 1225/02/03) as well as the Volkswagen Foundation (No. 90,531).

References

  1. Alexy, Robert (1989). A theory of legal argumentation (Trans: Ruth Adler, Neil MacCormick). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aldisert, Ruggero. 1997. Logic for lawyers: A guide to clear legal thinking. Boulder: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.Google Scholar
  3. Amaya, Amalia. 2008. Justification, coherence, and epistemic responsibility in legal fact-finding. Epsteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 5(3), 306–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bex, Floris J. 2011. Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feteris, Eveline. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation: A Survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academics Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gardner, James A. 1993. Legal argument: The structure of language of effective advocacy. Charlottesville: The Michie Company.Google Scholar
  7. Greenawalt, Kent. 2010. Legal interpretation: Perspectives from other disciplines and private texts (part 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harsanyi, J. 1977. Rational behavior and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hock Lai, Ho. 2008. A philosophy of evidence law: Justice in the search for truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kelsen, Hans. 1991, 1971. General theory of norms. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Laudan, Larry. 2006. Truth, error, and criminal law: An essay in legal epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacCormick, Neil. 2005. Rhetoric and the rule of law: A theory of legal reasoning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rescher, Nicholas. 1977. Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  14. Scalia, Antonin, and Bryan A. Garner. 2012. Reading law: The interpretation of legal texts. St. Paul: Thomson/West.Google Scholar
  15. Teply, Larry L. 2005. Legal negotiation in a nutshell, 2nd ed. St. Paul: Thomson/West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  16. Van Benthem, Johan. 1996. Logic and argumentation theory. In Proceedings colloquium on logic and argumentation, ed. F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. van Benthem, and F. Veltman, 27–41. Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  17. Van Benthem, Johan. 2009. One logician’s perspective on argumentation. Cogency 1 (2): 13–25.Google Scholar
  18. Van Benthem, Johan. 2014. Logic in games. Bradford: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Van Eemeren, Frans, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck-Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: Analaysis, evaluation, presentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  20. van den Hoven, Paul. 1988. Kelsen’s general theory of norms. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 1 (3): 295–323.Google Scholar
  21. Xiong, Minghui. 2010. Litigational argumentation: A logical perspective of litigation games. Beijing: China University of Politics and Law Press.Google Scholar
  22. Xiong, Minghui. 2012. A judge’s argumentation skill in judicial practice. Legal Science 370 (9): 16–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sun Yat-sen University, Institute of Logic and CognitionGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Konstanz University, PhilosophyKonstanzGermany
  3. 3.Lund University, Department of PhilosophyLundSweden
  4. 4.SAS, Institute of PhilosophyBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations