Strategic Maneuvering with the Argumentative Role of Legal Principles in the Case of the “Unworthy Spouse”

Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 102)

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.

Keywords

Legal Principle District Court Strategic Maneuvering Legal Consideration Discussion Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s empire. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Feteris, E.T. 2008. Strategic maneuvering with the intention of the legislator in the justification of judicial decisions. Argumentation 22: 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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).Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Kloosterhuis, H. 2006. Reconstructing interpretative argumentation in legal decisions. A pragma-dialectical approach. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  9. Plug, H.J. 1990. In onderlinge samenhang bezien. De pragma-dialectische reconstructie van complexe argumentatie in rechterlijke uitspraken. Dissertation Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic manoeuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2006. Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20: 377–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, International Learned Institute for Argumentation Studies (ILIAS)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations