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. 125–138

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

Chapter 8
Argumentative patterns with symptomatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisions

Published online: 14 August 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.08fet
Article outline
  • 8.1Introduction
  • 8.2Legal justification and the application of legal rules in clear cases and hard cases
  • 8.3Prototypical argumentative patterns in clear cases and hard cases
  • 8.4Prototypical argumentative patterns in hard cases about the meaning of a legal rule
    • 8.4.1Argumentation in a hard case in which the court makes an exception to a legal rule
    • 8.4.2Argumentation in a hard case in which the court gives an interpretation of a legal rule
  • 8.5Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (20)
References
Bench-Capon, T., Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (2009). Argumentation in legal reasoning. In I. Rahwan & G. Simari (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. 363–382). Dordrecht etc.: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s empire. London: Fontana.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van (2016). Identifying argumentative patterns. A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 29(3), 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen, B. (2014). Argumentative patterns in discourse. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewinski (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th OSSA Conference at the University of Windsor, May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA. CD-rom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (1993) The judge as a critical antagonist in a legal process. A pragma-dialectical perspective. In R. E. McKerrow (Ed.), Argument and the postmodern challenge. Proceedings of the eighth SCA/AFA Conference on argumentation (pp. 476–480). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.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 (pp. 69–78). Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie, ARSP Beiheft Nr. 91.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). An analysis of teleological-evaluative argumentation in complex structures of legal justification. In H. V. Hansen et al. (Eds.), Dissensus & the search for common ground (pp. 1–11). Windsor, ON: OSSA. CD-rom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015a). Argumentation from reasonableness in the justification of judicial decisions. In T. Bustamante & C. Dahlman (Eds.), Argument types and fallacies in legal argumentation (pp. 179–203). Dordrecht etc.: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). The role of pragmatic argumentation referring to consequences, goals and values in the justification of judicial decisions. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th ISSA conference. Amsterdam: Rozenboom. CD-rom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Prototypical argumentative patterns in a legal context. The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of legal decisions. Argumentation, 29(3), 61–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garssen, B. (2013). Strategic maneuvering in European Parliamentary debate. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 33–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hage, J. C. (1997). Reasoning with rules. An essay on legal reasoning and its underlying logic. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Dialectical models in artificial intelligence and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8, 137–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. (1978). Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacCormick, N., & Summers, R. (Eds.). Interpreting statutes. A comparative study. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Prakken, H. (2001). Modelling defeasibility in law. Logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 48, 253–271.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). AI & law, logic and argument schemes. Argumentation, 19, 303–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1998). Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue game. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6, 231–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verheij, B. (1996). Rules, reasons, arguments. Formal studies of argumentation and defeat. Doctoral dissertation University of Maastricht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three 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
Dajović, Goran
2025. Homo iuridicus and legal reasoning. Pravni zapisi 16:2 ► pp. 282 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2018. Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [Argumentation Library, 33], ► pp. 149 ff. 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