Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp.245–261

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

Challenging judicial impartiality

When accusations of derailments of strategic maneuvering derail

 | University of Amsterdam
Published online: 25 September 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17026.plu
Abstract
Impartiality is one of the core values underlying the administration of justice. A complaint about a judge’s supposed lack of impartiality may be filed on the grounds of the judge’s verbal behavior. In this article I will analyze complaints that concern the judge’s use of rhetorical questions during court hearings. I will explore what role these complaints may play in the strategic maneuvering of a party who seeks the judge’s disqualification.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A disqualification procedure: Sub-discussion and specific activity type
    • 2.1Arguments in a sub-discussion on the verbal behavior of the judge
  • 3.Complaints about the use of rhetorical questions
    • 3.1The argumentative function of rhetorical questions in legal activity types
    • 3.2Justifying complaints about rhetorical questions in disqualification requests
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (33)
References
Bauw, E. 2011. Wat te denken van wraking? Ars Aequi, vol. 60, issue 3, 202–206.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danet, B. 1980. Language in the legal process. Law & Society Review 14(3), 445–564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & R. 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
Eemeren, F. H. van & R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, P. Houtlosser & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in Discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J. 1999. Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. 1987. The Dialectical Role of the Judge in a Dutch Legal Process, In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and Critical Practices. Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, 335–339, Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Fundamentals Of Legal Argumentation. A Survey Of Theories On The Justification Of Judicial Decisions. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frank, J. 1990. You call that a rhetorical Question? Forms and functions of rhetorical questions in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 723–738. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giesen, I., F. Kristen, L. Enneking & L. van Lent. 2013. Op weg naar een nieuwe wrakingsprocedure. Meer legitimiteit en minder oneigenlijk gebruik. (Challenging Judges: A New Procedure for Disqualification of Judges in the Netherlands?). Nederlands Juristenblad, afl 081, 466–477.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hammerstein, A. 2014. ‘Onpartijdigheid in het geding’, Trema, 261, afl 51, 148–154.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, D. J., M. O’Boyle & C. Warbrick. 2014. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ilie, C. 1994. What else can I tell you? A pragmatic study of English rhetorical questions as discursive and argumentative acts. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995. The validity of rhetorical questions as arguments in the courtroom. In F. H van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds) Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Special fields and cases. Volume 51, 73–88. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kloosterhuis, H. 1997. The Reconstruction of Legal Analogy-Argumentation: Monological and Dialogical Approaches. OSSA Conference, Archive. 661.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knapen, M. 2012. Advocaten ontdekken wraking, Advocatenblad 2012, nr. 11, 18–23.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lanham, R. A. 1991. A handlist of rhetorical terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loucaides, L. G. 2007. The European Convention on Human Rights. Collected Essays. Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pascual, E. 2006. Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk, vol. 26, issue 3, 10–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plug, H. J. 1996. Complex argumentation in judicial decisions. Analysing conflicting arguments. In D. M. Gabbay and H. J. Ohlbach (Eds.) Practical Reasoning. International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, FAPR ’96 Bonn, Germany, June 3–7, 1996 Proceedings, 464–480, Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Maximally argumentative analysis of judicial argumentation. In Frans H. van Eemeren (Ed.) Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, 261–270, Amsterdam: Sic Sat / Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Administrative Judicial Decisions as a Hybrid Argumentative Activity Type. Informal logic, 36 (3), 333–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(in press). The analysis of argumentation underlying complaints about a lack of judicial impartiality. In M. Manzin, F. Puppo & S. Tomasi (Eds.). Studies on Argumentation & Legal Philosophy. Multimodal Argumentation, Pluralism and Images in Law. Trento: Quaderni della Facoltà, Università di Trento.
Rossum, W. van, J. Tigchelaar & P. Ippel. 2012. Wraking bottom-up. Een empirisch onderzoek. Den Haag: Raad voor de Rechtspraak.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruskin, W. A. 2014. Effective Use Of Rhetorical Questions In Jury Summation. LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom Litigation (website).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sala, M. 2010. Interrogative forms as professional identity markers in legal research articles. In Garzone, G. & Archibald, J. (Eds.) Discourse, Identities and Roles in Specialized Communication, 301–320. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt-Radefeldt, J. 1977. On so-called ’rhetorical questions’. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 375–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slot, P. 1993. How Can You Say That? Rhetorical Questions in Argumentative Texts. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, M. R. 2013. Advanced Legal Writing. Theories and Strategies in Persuasive writing. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 2006. Manoeuvring Strategically With Rhetorical Questions. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard and B. Garssen (Eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) . Amsterdam: Rozenberg. 1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. 2000. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, K. 2016. Discourse, Identity and Social Change in the Marriage Equality Debates. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue