Cover not available

Article published In: Context-dependency of Argumentative Patterns
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 6:1] 2017
► pp. 44–58

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

The identification of prototypical argumentative patterns in the justification of judicial decisions

 | University of Amsterdam, ILIAS
Published online: 6 April 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.1.03fet
Abstract
In this contribution I identify prototypical patterns in the justification of judicial decisions. From a pragma-dialectical perspective, I explain the nature and rationale for the argumentative patterns from the perspective of the institutional function of legal justification and I distinguish different argumentative patterns in clear cases and hard cases in the justification of judicial decisions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Legal justification and the application of legal rules in clear cases and hard cases
  • 3.Prototypical argumentative patterns in clear cases and hard cases
  • 4.Prototypical argumentative patterns in hard cases about the meaning of a legal rule
    • 4.1The argumentation in a hard case in which the court makes an exception to a legal rule
    • 4.2The argumentation in a hard case in which the court gives an interpretation of a legal rule
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (14)
References
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
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 41: 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. (CD-om) (pp. 1–11) Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015a). Argumentation from reasonableness in the justification of judicial decisions. In: T. Bustamante and 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
Feteris, E.T (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
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
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.). (1991) Interpreting statutes. A comparative study. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prakken, H. (2001). Modelling defeasibility in law: logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 481, 253–271.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, 61, 231–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Kienpointner, Manfred
2023. Review of van Eemeren, Garssen, Greco, van Haaften, Labrie, Leal & Wu (2022): Argumentative Style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 12:2 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Feteris, Eveline T.
2017. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach of Legal Argumentation. In Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 1], ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2017. The dependency of argumentative patterns on the institutional context. In Prototypical argumentative patterns [Argumentation in Context, 11], ► pp. 157 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