[HOME] [BOOKS] [ORDERING] [JOURNALS] [ABSTRACTS] [LINKS] [SPECIAL OFFERS]

Eveline T. Feteris, "Recent Developments in Legal Argumentation Theory: Dialectical Approaches to Legal Argumentation", International Journal for the Semiotics of Law VII/20 (1994), 134-153.

Until 1970, in the literature on legal argumentation logical and rhetorical approaches have been the predominant research traditions. From 1970, a dialectical approach has been developed in which legal argumentation is considered from the perspective of a dialogue in which a legal standpoint is discussed. The article first discusses some general backgrounds of the study of legal argumentation and describes logical and rhetorical approaches. Then it describes what a dialectical approach to legal argumentation amounts to and discusses the contributions of several representatives of such an approach.

In a dialectical approach, legal argumentation is considered as part of a dialogue about the acceptability of a legal standpoint. In a critical dialogue, the acceptability of a legal standpoint is tested in relation to certain forms of critical doubt brought forward by an antagonist or another critical audience. The purpose of a dialectical approach is to establish how a legal discussion should be carried out in order to resolve a legal dispute in a rational way. Representatives of a dialectical approach in argumentation theory are Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Feteris, Kloosterhuis, and Plug. Representatives in legal theory are Aarnio, Alexy, and Peczenik.

In order to be able to give an adequate evaluation of legal argumentation, a theoretical model for the reconstruction of legal arguments is required. Such a model specifies which elements are relevant for the evaluation of legal arguments and which rules are necessary to give an adequate evaluation.

The advantage of a dialectical approach to legal argumentation above a pure logical or rhetorical approach is that the justification of a legal decision can be evaluated on the basis of formal, material and procedural grounds. Furthermore, the approach offers a heuristic tool for analysing legal argumentation and discussions and a critical tool for evaluating legal argumentation and discussions.

The model for the analysis and reconstruction of argumentation in general, as developed by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, and the theories of legal argumentation which have been developed by Aarnio, Alexy, MacCormick and Peczenik can be considered as a useful starting point for a normative theoretical model for the description of relevant features of legal argumentation. The insights into the aspects of the evaluation of legal argumentation offer a useful starting point for a system of norms for rational legal argumentation and discussions.

Key references

Aarnio, A. (1977). On legal reasoning. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.

Aarnio, A. (1987). The rational as reasonable: A treatise on legal justification. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

Alexy, R. (1989). A theory of legal argumentation: The theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification (R. Adler & N. MacCormick, Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Original German edition copyright 1978)

Aarnio, A., Alexy, R. & Peczenik, A. (1981). The foundation of legal reasoning. Rechtstheorie 21,, 133-158, 257-279, 423-448.

Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Feteris, E.T. (1990). 'Conditions and rules for rational discussion in a legal process: A pragma-dialectical perspective'. Argumentation and Advocacy. Journal of the American Forensic Association. Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 108-117.

Feteris, E.T. (1993). 'Rationality in legal discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective'. Informal Logic, Vol. XV, No. 3, p. 179-188.

Kloosterhuis, H. (1994). 'Analysing analogy argumentation in judicial decisions'. In: F.H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, p. 238-246.

Peczenik, A. (1983). The basis of legal justification. Lund.

Peczenik, A. (1989). On law and reason. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer.

Plug, H.J. (1994). 'Reconstructing complex argumentation in judicial decisions'. In: F.H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, p. 246-255.

Author: Instituut voor Neerlandistiek, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam; tel. 020-5254705, email: e.feteris@let.uva.nl

[HOME] [BOOKS] [ORDERING] [JOURNALS] [ABSTRACTS] [LINKS] [SPECIAL OFFERS]