Cover not available

In:Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu and Stanca Măda
[Dialogue Studies 26] 2015
► pp. 19–38

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

The burden of proof in dealing with political accountability

 | University of Amsterdam and ILIAS (The Netherlands)
Published online: 1 October 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.02and
The aim of this paper is to explain from a pragma-dialectical argumentative perspective the use of the concept of burden of proof in dealing with political accountability. In the first part of the paper, a procedural view of the burden of proof is sketched which is fundamental for understanding its rationale. In the second part, the role of this concept in accountability practices in explained. Finally, it is shown what the burden of proof involves in the case when a politician has to account for his views in a political interview.
References (27)
References
Bovens, Mark. 2006. “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework.” European Law Journal 13 (4): 447–468. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curtin, Deirdre. 2007. “Holding (Quasi-) Autonomous EU Administrative Actors to Public Account.” European Law Journal 13 (4): 523–541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curtin, Deirdre, and André Nollkaemper. 2005. “Conceptualizing Accountability in International and European Law.” Netherlands Yearbook of International Law XXXVI: 3–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. Van, and Bart Garssen. 2011. “Exploiting the Room for Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Dealing with Audience Demand in the European Parliament.” In Exploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 43–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Peter Houtlosser. 2002. “Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof.” In Advances in Pragma-dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 13–28. Amsterdam/ Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/ Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houtlosser, Peter. 2002. “Indicators of a Point of View.” In Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 169–184. Amsterdam/ Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/ Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kauffeld, Fred J. 2003. “The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption with Special Attention to Veracity and the Burden of Proof.” In Anyone Who Has a View. Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A Willard, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 133–146. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007a. “The Burden of Proof: A Macro or a Micro Level Concept?” In Reason Reclaimed, ed. by Hans Hansen, and Robert Pinto, 65–73. Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007b. “What Are We Learning about the Pragmatics of the Arguers’ Obligations?” In Concerning Argument: Selected Papers from the 15th Biennial Conference on Argumentation, ed. by Scott Jacobs, 1–31. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montgomery, Martin. 2007. The Discourse of Broadcast News. A Linguistic Approach. London/ New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulgan, Richard. 2003. Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oliver, Dawn. 2009. “Executive Accountability: A Key Concept.” In Political Accountability and European Integration, ed. by Luc Verhey, Philipp Kiiver, and Sandor Loeffen, 9–31. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1977. Dialectics. A Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shackleton, Michael. 1998. “The European Parliament’s New Committees of Inquiry: Tiger or Paper Tiger?” Journal of Common Market Studies 36 (1): 115–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 2000. “Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 37: 261–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomkins, Adam. 2008. “Political Accountability in the United Kingdom.” In Political Accountability in Europe: Which Way Forward?, ed. by Luc Verhey, Hansko Broeksteeg, and Ilse van den Driessche, 243–269. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tseronis, Assimakis. 2009. Qualifying Standpoints. Stance Adverbials as a Presentational Device for Managing the Burden of Proof. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhey, Luc. 2009. “Political Accountability: A Useful Concept in EU Inter-Institutional Relations?” In Political Accountability and European Integration, ed. by Luc Verhey, Philipp Kiiver, and Sandor Loeffen, 55–70. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N., and Erik C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wonka, Arndt. 2007. “Technocratic and Independent? The Appointment of European Commissioners and its Policy Implications.” Journal of European Public Policy 14 (2): 169–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Hernández, Alfonso
2021. Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Demir, Yeliz
2016. Maneuvering strategically in a press conference to diminish political responsibility for a critical event. Journal of Argumentation in Context 5:2 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. 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