Cover not available

In:Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Argumentation in Context 11] 2017
► pp. 71–91

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 5
The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisisons

Published online: 14 August 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.05fet
Article outline
  • 5.1Introduction
  • 5.2Pragmatic argumentation in legal justification
    • 5.2.1The justification of the appropriateness of pragmatic argumentation
    • 5.2.2The justification of the applicability of pragmatic argumentation
      • 5.2.2.1The implementation of pragmatic argumentation in legal justification
      • 5.2.2.2The implementation of subordinative argumentation in reaction to critical questions
  • 5.3Exemplary analysis of the use of argumentation referring to consequences in light of the purpose of the rule
    • 5.3.1The justification of the appropriateness of pragmatic argumentation
    • 5.3.2The justification of the applicability of the argument scheme of pragmatic argumentation
  • 5.4Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (26)
References
Alexy, R. (1989). A theory of legal argumentation. The theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification. (Translation of Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1978.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atiyah, P. S., & R. S. Summers (1991). Form and substance in Anglo-American law. A comparative study of legal reasoning, legal theory and legal institutions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bertea, S. (2005). Does arguing from coherence make sense? Argumentation, 19(4), 433–446. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bustamante, T. (2013). On the argumentum ad absurdum in statutory interpretation. Its uses and normative significance. In E. T. Feteris & C. Dahlman (Eds.). Legal argumentation theory. Cross-disciplinary perspectives In: (pp. 21–44). Dordrecht etc.: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canale, D., & G. Tuzet (2009). Inferring the ratio. Commitments and constraints. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis & H. J. Plug (Eds.), Argumentation and the application of legal rules (p. 15–34). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carbonell, F. (2013). Reasoning by consequences. Applying different argumentation structures to the analysis of consequentialist reasoning in judicial decisions. E. T. Feteris & C. Dahlman (Eds.), Legal argumentation theory. Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht, etc.: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & R. Grootendorst (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (1990). Conditions and rules for rational discussion in a legal process. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation and Advocacy. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 26(3), 108–117.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Rationality in legal discussions. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Informal Logic, 15(3), 179–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). A pragma-dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 16(3), 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Rational reconstruction of legal argumentation and the role of arguments from consequences. In A. Soeteman (Ed.), Pluralism and law. Proceedings of the 20th IVR World Congress, Amsterdam, 2001. Volume 4: Legal Reasoning. Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie, ARSP Beiheft 91, 69–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The rational reconstruction of argumentation referring to consequences and purposes in the application of legal rules: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 19(4), 459–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008a). The pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of teleological argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation, 22(4), 489–506. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008b). Strategic maneuvering with the intention of the legislator in the justification of judicial decisions. Argumentation, 22(3), 335–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008c). Weighing and balancing in the justification of judicial decisions. Informal Logic, 28(1), 20–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Strategic manoeuvring in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 93–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012a). The role of the judge in legal proceedings. A pragma-dialectical analysis. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(2), 234–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012b). Strategic manoeuvring in the case of the ‘Unworthy spouse’. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts (pp. 149–164). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kloosterhuis, H. (2006). Reconstructing interpretative argumentation in legal decisions. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. (1978). Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Rhetoric and the rule of law. A theory of legal reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacCormick, N., & R. S. Summers (Eds.) (1991). Interpreting statutes. A comparative study. Aldershot etc.: Dartmouth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peczenik, A. (1989). On law and reason. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plug, H. J. (2005). Evaluating References to the Intention of the Legislator. In L. J. Wintgens (Ed.), The theory and practice of legislation. Essays in legisprudence (pp. 318–330). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Summers, R. S. (1991). Statutory interpretation in the United States. In N. MacCormick & R. S. Summers (Eds.), Interpreting statutes (pp. 407–460) Aldershot etc.: Dartmouth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Brambilla, Emanuele
2025. Etiamsi omnes, ego non: an exploratory study of argument types in separate opinions . Comparative Legilinguistics 64 ► pp. 484 ff. DOI logo
Finsen, Andreas Bilstrup & Jean Wagemans
2025. Reconstructing Resistance: Pragmatic Argumentation Against Scientific Metaphor. Argumentation DOI logo
Alves do Nascimento França, Hális
2022. Rethinking Interpretative Arguments. In New Developments in Legal Reasoning and Logic [Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, 23], ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Argumentative Style [Argumentation in Context, 20], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue