This book offers its readers an overview of recent developments in the theory of legal argumentation written by representatives from various disciplines, including argumentation theory, philosophy of law, logic and artificial intelligence. It presents an overview of contributions representative of different academic and legal cultures, and different continents and countries. The book contains contributions on strategic maneuvering, argumentum ad absurdum, argumentum ad hominem, consequentialist argumentation, weighing and balancing, the relation between legal argumentation and truth, the distinction between the context of discovery and context of justification, and the role of constitutive and regulative rules in legal argumentation. It is based on a selection of papers that were presented in the special workshop on Legal Argumentation organized at the 25th IVR World Congress for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy held 15-20 August 2011 in Frankfurt, Germany.

This book is an updated and revised edition of Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation published in 1999. It discusses new developments that have taken place in the past 15 years in research of legal argumentation, legal justification and legal interpretation, as well as the implications of these new developments for the theory of legal argumentation. Almost every chapter has been revised and updated, and the chapters include discussions of recent studies, major additions on topical issues, new perspectives, and new developments in several theoretical areas. Examples of these additions are discussions of recent developments in such areas as Habermas' theory, MacCormick's theory, Alexy's theory, Artificial Intelligence and law, and the pragma-dialectical theory of legal argumentation. Furthermore it provides an extensive and systematic overview of approaches and studies of legal argumentation in the context of legal justification in various legal systems and countries that have been important for the development of research of legal argumentation. The book contains a discussion of influential theories that conceive the law and legal justification as argumentative activity. From different disciplinary and theoretical angles it addresses such topics as the institutional characteristics of the law and the relation between general standards for moral discussions and legal standards such as the Rule of Law. It discusses patterns of legal justification in the context of different types of problems in the application of the law and it describes rules for rational legal discussions. The combination of the sound basis of the first edition and the discussions of new developments make this new edition an up-to-date and comprehensive survey of the various theoretical influences which have informed the study of legal argumentation. It discusses salient backgrounds to this field as well as major approaches and trends in the contemporary research. It surveys the relevant theoretical factors both from various continental law traditions and common law countries.

Prototypical Argumentative Patterns reports about a research project started at the University of Amsterdam in 2012. In this project distinctive argumentative patterns have been identified in argumentative discourse in the political, the legal and the medical domain. These patterns consist of constellations of argumentative moves in which, in order to deal with a particular kind of difference of opinion, in defence of a particular type of standpoint, a particular argument scheme or combination of argument schemes is used in a particular kind of argumentation structure. The composition of these prototypical argumentative patterns can be explained by referring to the institutional characteristics of the communicative activity types in which they occur. By exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and the institutional context, Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Corina Andone, Eveline Feteris and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans have provided a new and illuminating perspective on the context-dependency of argumentative discourse.

Integrating research methods from Linguistics with contemporary Legal Argumentation Theory, this book highlights the complexities of legal justification by focusing on the role of value-laden language in argument construction and use. The combination of linguistic analysis and the pragma-dialectic approach to legal argumentation yields a new way of perceiving and understanding the phenomenon of evaluation, one that offers theoretical and practical gains. Analyzing a vast corpus of judicial opinions from the United States Supreme Court and Poland’s Constitutional Court, the book paints a clear picture of complex linguistic choices made by judges to assess and support arguments in the justifications of their decisions. The book will be of interest to scholars in Law, Linguistics and Rhetoric, as well as to judges and practicing lawyers engaged in the art of argumentation.

This collection on legal interpretation in a broad sense presents state-of-the-art linguistic approaches that are applied for studying interpretation and meaning generation in various legal settings. It covers different aspects of the concepts like judicial dissent, court argumentation, investigating sociological meaning, or comparing legal meaning in comparative law. Scholars can turn to the volume for methods and findings to ground their own inquiries, and students will find guides to topics and methods in the field of law, meaning generation, and language.

Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice contains a selection of papers reflecting upon the use of argumentation in real life contexts. The first five sections are devoted to argumentation in a specific institutional context: scientific controversies, argumentation in politics, argumentation in a legal context, argumentation in education, argumentation in an interpersonal context. The last section deals with strategic maneuvering as a vital concept in studying argumentation in practice. The contributors are: Francesco Arcidiacono, Michael J. Baker, Sarah Bigi, Marina Bletsas, Stephanie Breux, William O. Dailey, Marianne Doury, Claudio Duran, Frans H. van Eemeren, Lindsay M. Ellis, Jeanne Fahnestock, Eveline T. Feteris, Bart Garssen, Anca Gâţă, Salma I. Ghanem, Sara Greco, Edward A. Hinck, Robert S. Hinck, Shelly S. Hinck, Henrike Jansen, Takayuki Kato, Susan L. Kline, Pascale Mansier, Bert Meuffels, Celine Miserez-Caperos, D’Arcy Oaks, Sachinidou Paraskevi, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, H. José Plug, Takeshi Suzuki, and David Zarefsky.

This book provides theoretical tools for evaluating the soundness of arguments in the context of legal argumentation. It deals with a number of general argument types and their particular use in legal argumentation. It provides detailed analyses of argument from authority, argument ad hominem, argument from ignorance, slippery slope argument and other general argument types. Each of these argument types can be used to construct arguments that are sound as well as arguments that are unsound. To evaluate an argument correctly one must be able to distinguish the sound instances of a certain argument type from its unsound instances. This book promotes the development of theoretical tools for this task.