Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 12:2 (2023) ► pp.211–233

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

A repugnant possibility

The construction of the argumentation in the enforcement of annulled arbitral award Commisa v Pemex

ORCiD logo with link | Universidad San Jorge
Published online: 15 September 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22004.gin
Abstract
Commisa v Pemex is one of the rare cases where an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration is enforced. The judges are forced to justify how the notion of public policy becomes a priority over international comity.
This paper explores, from a pragma-dialectic approach, what rhetorical strategies are employed to justify this decision. Legal Argumentation Theory (van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Feteris, E. T. (2005). “The rational reconstruction of argumentation referring to consequences and purposes in the application of legal rules: a pragmadialectical perspective”, Argumentation 19 (4), 459–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; van Eemeren, F. H. (2007). Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Feteris, E., & H. Kloosterhuis. (2009). “The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation: approaches from legal theory and argumentation theory.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 16(29), 307–331.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) values a combination between rational knowledge and rhetoric; for which interpersonality could be highly involved. On the one hand, metaphor (Lakoff, G., & M. Turner. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Sopory, P., & J. P. Dillard. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382–419Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Mussolf, 2017) supports the legal argumentation; while, on the other hand, hedges, intensifiers, attitudinal markers (Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). “Some Explanatory Discourse on Metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 36/11, 82–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Crismore, 1993; Hyland, 1999, 2000a; Dafouz, E. (2003). “Metadiscourse Revisited: A Contrastive Study of Persuasive Writing in Professional Discourse.” Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 111, 29–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) shape the message to convince the audience that, on this occasion, a previously annulled international arbitral award should be enforced.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Case background: Commisa v Pemex
    • 1.2The role of the New York convention and the Panama Convention
      • 1.2.1The language in the conventions
  • 2.Strategic manouvering in legal decisions
  • 3.Interpersonality and rhetorical strategies of persuasion
  • 4.The use of metaphor
  • 5.Analysis and discussion of the argumentation of Commisa v Pemex
    • 5.1First standpoint: Jurisdiction and venue
    • 5.2Second standpoint: Discretion to confirm the award
    • 5.3Third standpoint: Performance bonds
    • 5.4Final remarks
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (49)
References
Aarnio, A. (1987). The rational as reasonable. A treatise of legal justification. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ackermann v. Levine, 610 F. Supp. 633 (SDNY 1985)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexy, R. (1989). A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1926. Rhetoric. (1926) trans. by J. H. Freese. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) (Trans., C. Emerson, Trans.). In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986) (V. W. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). “Adverbial Stance Types in English”. Discourse Processes, 111, 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors Studies in Language and Philosophy. Madrid Cornell University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cicero, M. T. n.d. De Inventione Studi di filologia e letteratura. 1998. Galatina: M. Congedo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
-55. De Oratore. 1948 trans. by E. W. Sutton: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Constable, M. (2014). Law as language. Critical Analysis of Law, 1(1), 63–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración y Producción, 9621 F. Supp. 2d 642 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, 10 June 1958, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 330, No. 4739, p. 3Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crismore, A., R. Markkanen, & M. S. Steffensen. (1993). “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students”. Written Communication, 10(1): 39–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dafouz, E. (2003). “Metadiscourse Revisited: A Contrastive Study of Persuasive Writing in Professional Discourse.” Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 111, 29–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ebbesson, J. (2008). Law, Power and Language: Beware of Metaphors. Scandinavian Studies in Law 531:259–269.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Endicott, T. A. O. (2000). Vagueness in Law. Oxford: OUP Oxford. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (2005). “The rational reconstruction of argumentation referring to consequences and purposes in the application of legal rules: a pragmadialectical perspective”, Argumentation 19 (4), 459–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, E., & H. Kloosterhuis. (2009). “The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation: approaches from legal theory and argumentation theory.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 16(29), 307–331.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giner, D. (2017). “Rhetorical strategies of persuasion in the reasoning of international investment arbitral awards” in Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres: providing keys to the rhetoric of professional communities. Linguistic Insights, ed. by María Ángeles Orts, Ruth Breeze, and Maurizio Gotti, 243–265. Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, Wien (et al.): Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodrich, H. F. (1924). Tort Obligations and the Conflict of Laws. In The Conflict of Laws. 73 U. of Pa. L. Rev., 19–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkle, R K., A. D. Martin, J. D. Shaub & E. Tiller. (2012). “A positive theory and empirical analysis of strategic word choice in district court opinions. Journal of Legal Analysis, 41(), 407–444. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & G. Thompson (eds.) (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inter-American Convention on international commercial arbitration, 30 January 1975, 1438 U.N.T.S. 245, O.A.S.T.S. No. 42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kloosterhuis, H. (2008). The Strategic Use of Formal Argumentation in Legal Decisions. Ratio Juris, 211: 496–506.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & M. Turner. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCormac, E. R. (1985). A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. Cambridge, Mass: MIT PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maniruzzaman, A. F. M. (2012). The Concept of Good Faith in International Investment Disputes – The Arbitrator’s Dilemma. Amicus Curiae: Journal of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies 891. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manzin, M. (2012). A rhetorical Approach to Legal Reasoning. In Exploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston, and Geoffrey Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142–177.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2017). Metaphor and Cultural Cognition. In Sharifian, F. (ed.) Advances in Cultural Linguistics, Springer Singapore, pp. 325–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, S. A. (1999). Uses of Metaphor in Legal Argument. New York Law Journal, November. 4371.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osborn, M. & D. Ehninger. (1962). The Metaphor in Public Address. Speech Monograph, 291, pp. 223–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C. (1979). Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quintilian, M. F. 92–94. Institutio Oratoria. 1980 trans. by H. E. Butler. 41 vols. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapir, D. & C. Crocker (eds.). (1977). The Social Use of Metaphor: Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, M. R. (2007). Levels of Metaphor in Persuasive Legal Writing. Mercer Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 3.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sopory, P., & J. P. Dillard. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382–419Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1981)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Termorio S.A.E.S.P. & Leaseco Group, L.L.C. v. Electranta S.P. et al., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & R. Grootendorst. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2007). Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). “Some Explanatory Discourse on Metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 36/11, 82–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vass, H. (2004). “Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres”. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 71, 125–141.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vázquez, I., and D. Giner. (2012). “Contrastive Study of International Commercial Arbitration and Court Judgments: Intertextuality through Metadiscourse in Action” in Arbitration awards: Generic features and textual realizations, ed. by V. Bhatia, G. Garzone, and C. Degano, 171–191. Cambridge: Cambridge Publishing Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Encinas Duarte, Gabriel Alejandro
2025. Interlegal argumentation in the UK Drill Music decision of Meta’s Oversight Board. Journal of Argumentation in Context 14:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 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