How does a Muslim jurist think the law and how, accordingly, he judges a fact? Using Alice in Wonderland as hermeneutical device to explore the logic of fiqh, this article identifies a divergence between Western and Islamic legal thinking in the application of abduction as key form of inference in the law of Islam. In particular, looking at the fact/law relation in symbolic terms, the article highlights how, while a dichotomy between fact and law characterizes Western legal thinking, fiqh upholds (...) a connection between the “real” and the “right”, where the effort in understanding sharī‘ah postulates the actualization of the “rule” in God’s creation. Thus, if sharī‘ahpre-scribes the Law, not only is the rule discovered through the sources, but the right has to be justified through a verdict de-scribing the fact, for the law to be validly stated for the given situation. In this sense, abduction as explanatory “hypothesis” and “inference to the best explanation” of sharī‘ah provides an account for the probabilistic nature of fiqh, its ramification through verdicts, as well as for the epistemic and narrative function of the tradition as core aspects of the logic of Islamic law. At the same time, doubts can be raised about the compatibility between this logic and the deductive logic of modern state law, as a sub-product of Western legal thinking. (shrink)

In this contribution the prototypical argumentative patterns are discussed in which pragmatic argumentation is used in the context of legal justification in hard cases. First, the function and implementation of pragmatic argumentation in prototypical argumentative patterns in legal justification are addressed. The dialectical function of the different parts of the complex argumentation are explained by characterizing them as argumentative moves that are put forward in reaction to certain forms of critique. Then, on the basis of an exemplary case, the famous (...) Holy Trinity case, the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court uses pragmatic argumentation in this case is discussed by showing how the court instantiates general prototypical argumentative patterns in light of the institutional preconditions of the justification in the context of the specific case. (shrink)

The recent outbreak of Ebola in West Africa has killed thousands of people, including healthcare workers. African responses have been varied and largely ineffective. The WHO and the international community’s belated responses have yet to quell the epidemic. The crisis is characteristic of a failure to properly comply with the International Health Regulations 2005. More generally, it stems from a failure of international health justice as articulated by a range of legal institutions and instruments, and it should prompt us to (...) question the state and direction of approaches to the governance of global public health. This paper queries what might be done to lift global public health as a policy arena to the place of prominence that it deserves. It argues that there are at least two critical reasons for the past, present and easily anticipated future failings of the global public health regime. After exploring those, it then articulates a new way forward, identifying three courses of action that might be adopted in realising better health outcomes and global health justice, namely value, institutional and legal reform. (shrink)

Research using current literature on legal reasoning was conducted with the goals of (a) determining what skills are most important in good legal reasoning according to such literature, (b) determining the extent to which existing Law School Admission Test item types and subtypes are designed to assess those skills, and (c) suggesting test specifications or new or refined item types and formats that could be developed in the future to assess any important skills that appear [by (a) and (b)] to (...) be measured in a limited or minimal way by the current LSAT. So far as can be determined, such systematic research using legal reasoning literature has never been previously conducted. This report presents the findings of this research. (shrink)

¿Cómo justificar la validez jurídica de aquellas normas cuya creación no puede ser evaluada como regular o irregular por apelación a ninguna otra norma jurídica? Entre las respuestas más ilustres a este problema se cuentan la norma fundante kelseniana y la regla de reconocimiento de Hart, pero cada una de esas ideas ha sido objeto de serias críticas. Eugenio Bulygin ha efectuado aportes decisivos en esta discusión: ha advertido que cuando se examina el fundamento último de la validez de las (...) normas jurídicas es preciso discriminar un sentido prescriptivo y uno descriptivo de validez, y que la norma fundante de Kelsen no es sino el producto de una confusión entre ambos; ha resaltado que la regla de reconocimiento debe interpretarse como una regla conceptual que especifica los criterios de identificación de las normas jurídicas, y ha señalado que las normas de competencia no pueden reconstruirse como normas de conducta. Si bien con tales aportes ha sentado las bases para ofrecer una solución, su reconstrucción requiere de ciertas precisiones para poder ser considerada una respuesta enteramente satisfactoria a la pregunta respecto del fundamento último de la validez jurídica. How is it possible to ground the legal validity of those rules whose creation cannot be assessed as regular or irregular by reference to any other legal rule? Kelsen's basic norm and Hart's rule of recognition are among the most famous answers to this question, but both ideas have been seriously challenged. Eugenio Bulygin has made decisive contributions to this discussion. He has shown that in the analysis of the ultimate ground of validity of legal rules, two different senses of validity should be distinguished: a prescriptive and a descriptive sense, and that the Kelsenian basic norm is nothing but the product of confusion between these two different senses. He has also claimed that the rule of recognition has to be understood as a conceptual rule specifying the criteria of identification of legal rules, and those power-conferring rules cannot be interpreted as prescriptive norms of conduct. Although these contributions have provided a basic framework for a possible solution, Bulygin's ideas need a refinement in order to be considered as a satisfactory answer to the question concerning the ultimate ground of legal validity. (shrink)

Although coherence has become one of the key concepts in contemporary legal theory, its meaning is taken almost universally to be elusive, complex and controversial. However, these difficulties are due just to the failure of commentators to distinguish the intension of the notion from other features of its (many) referents in extension. The oversight has caused qualities to be ascribed routinely to coherence that properly attach to various object(s) of which coherence is predicated, and which a theorist happens to have (...) in mind when bringing coherence into view. This conceptual error has significance for the substance of present claims made for the use of the notion in law. Freed from the entanglement, coherence emerges thinner and fitter, better able to be deployed with confidence in legal application. (shrink)

Una de las cuestiones a que se enfrenta la teoría de la argumentación jurídica, y a la que se dedica este trabajo, es poner de relieve el papel que las valoraciones tienen en el proceso de aplicación del derecho. Las razones valorativas juegan un papel más importante que el que la concepción positivista del derecho suele advertir. En muchos casos las decisiones judiciales no pueden justificarse en el propio derecho, sino en valoraciones ajenas al mismo. Esto no debe significar que, (...) en este ámbito, aquellas sean necesariamente arbitrarias, pero sí discrecionales, lo que conlleva que deben establecerse algunos criterios de racionalidad; criterios que no son ya jurídicos, sino de carácter moral o ético. (shrink)

The essay discusses the import of the separability thesis both for legal positivism and for contemporary legal practice. First, the place of the separability thesis in legal positivism will be explored, distinguishing between “standard positivism” and “post‐Hartian positivism.” Then I will consider various kinds of relations between law and morality that are worthy of jurisprudential interest, and explore, from a positivist point of view, what kind of relations between law and morality must be rejected, what kind of such relations should (...) be taken into account, and what kind of such relations are indeed of no import at all. The upshot of this analysis consists in highlighting the distinction between two different dimensions of legal validity (formal validity and material validity respectively), and in pointing out that the positivist separability thesis can apply to formal validity only. On the other hand, when the ascertainment of material validity is at stake, some form of moral reasoning may well be involved (here and now, it isnecessarilyinvolved). The essay concludes with some brief remarks on the persisting importance of the positivist jurisprudential project. (shrink)

Used informally, the Reductio ad Absurdum (RAA) consists in reasoning appealing to the logically implied, absurd consequences of a hypothetical proposition, in order to refute it. This kind of reasoning resembles the Argument from Consequences, which appeals to causally induced consequences. These types of argument are sometimes confused, since it is not worked out how these different kinds of consequences should be distinguished. In this article it is argued that the logical consequences in RAA-argumentation can take different appearances and that (...) it therefore must be concluded that RAA cannot be characterised by a specific content, but must instead be characterised as an argument form. Furthermore, clues are provided to distinguish RAA reasoning from the Argument from Consequences. (shrink)

This paper defends a position that parts ways with the positivist view of legal certainty and reasonableness. I start out with a reconstruction of this view and move on to argue that an adequate analysis of certainty and reasonableness calls for an alternative approach, one based on the acknowledgement that argumentation is key to determining the contents, structure, and boundaries of a legal system. Here I claim that by endorsing a dialec-tical notion of rationality this alternative account espouses an ambitious (...) approach to rea-soning in law and conceives of the theory of legal argumentation as the vantage point from which to analyze legal systems and tackle the main problems connected with their existence. Next, I look at what this alternative approach does for the way we should go about treating certainty and reasonableness, considered singularly as well as in their recip-rocal relationship. I conclude on this basis that when argumentation receives its due emphasis in law we have to redefine certainty and reasonableness and recast their connection as non-conflictive. (shrink)

Our purpose in this article is to draw attention to a connection that obtains between two dilemmas from two separate spheres: sports and the law. It is our contention that umpires in the game of cricket may face a dilemma that is similar to a dilemma confronted by legal decision makers and that comparing the nature of the dilemmas, and the arguments advanced to solve them, will serve to advance our understanding of both the law and games.

This paper examines the concept of coherence and its role in legal reasoning. First, it identifies some problem areas confronting coherence theories of legal reasoning about both disputed questions of fact and disputed questions of law. Second, with a view to solving these problems, it proposes a coherence model of legal reasoning. The main tenet of this coherence model is that a belief about the law and the facts under dispute is justified if it is “optimally coherent,” that is, if (...) it is such that an epistemically responsible legal decision-maker would have accepted it as justified by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. Last, looking beyond the coherence theory, the paper explores the implications of the version of legal coherentism proposed for a general theory of legal reasoning and rationality. (shrink)

The author's thesis is that there is a conceptually necessary connection between law and morality which means legal positivism must fail as a comprehensive theory. The substantiation of this thesis takes place within a conceptual framework which shows that there are at least 64 theses to be distinguished, concerning the relationship of law and morality. The basis for the author's argument in favour of a necessary connection, is formed by the thesis that individual legal norms and decisions as well as (...) whole legal systems necessarily make a claim to correctness. The explication of this claim within the frame of discourse theory shows that the law has a conceptually necessary, ideal dimension, which connects law with a procedural, universalistic morality. (shrink)

This essay discusses the developments and trends of research in legalargumentation of the last 25 years. The essay starts with a survey of thevarious approaches which can be distinguished: the logical approach, therhetorical approach, and the dialogical approach. Then it identifies varioustopics in the research, which constitute the various components of aresearch programme of legal argumentation: the philosophical component, thetheoretical component, the reconstruction component, the empiricalcomponent, and the practical component. It concludes with a discussion ofthe main trends in the research (...) of the last 25 years. (shrink)

. Legal theory has so far focused exclusively on judicial activity, not on legislation. This is due to the specific legal framework of reasoning, upon which it is essential to act upon rules, wherever they come from. This form of legalism is criticized and replaced by weak legalism. Weak legalism makes it possible to detect the principles of legislation that underly the activity of the legislator. Legisprudence is the theory of these principles.

In this article, I distinguish between a moral and a strictly legal conception of legal normativity, and argue that legal positivists can account for law's normativity in the strictly legal but not in the moral sense, while pointing out that normativity in the former sense is of little interest, at least to lawyers. I add, however, that while the moral conception of law's normativity is to be preferred to the strictly legal conception from the rather narrow viewpoint of the study (...) of law's normativity, it is less attractive than the latter from the broader viewpoint of the study of the nature of law. I then distinguish between a moral and a strictly legal conception of the normative force of legal justification, and argue that legal positivists may without contradiction embrace the moral conception, and that therefore the analysis of the normative force of legal justification need not be a problem for legal positivists. I conclude that, on the whole, we have reason to prefer legal positivism to natural law theory. I begin by introducing the subject of jurisprudence . I then introduce the natural law/legal positivism debate, suggesting that we ought to understand it as a debate about the proper way to explicate the concept of law . I proceed to argue that legal decision‐making is a matter of applying legal norms to facts, and that syllogistic reasoning plays a prominent role in legal decision‐making thus conceived . Having done that, I discuss law's normativity , the normative force of legal justification , and the relation between the former and the latter . I conclude with a critical comment on Joseph Raz’ understanding of the question of law's normativity. (shrink)

This article deals with the relation between a theory of law and a theory of legal reasoning. Starting from a close reading of Chapter VII of H. L. A. Hart's The Concept of Law, it claims that a theory of law like Hart's requires a particular theory of legal reasoning, or at least a theory of legal reasoning with some particular characteristics. It then goes on to say that any theory of legal reasoning that satisfies those requirements is highly implausible, (...) and tries to show that this is the reason why not only Hart, but also writers like Neil MacCormick and Joseph Raz have failed to offer a theory of legal reasoning that is compatible with legal positivism as a theory of law. They have faced a choice between an explanation of legal reasoning that is incompatible with the core of legal positivism or else strangely sceptical, insofar as it severs the link between general rules and particular decisions that purport to apply them. (shrink)

Relativistic theories and arguments are fairly common in legal thinking. A case in point is Stanley Fish's theory of interpretation, which applies to statutes and constitutions as well as to novels and poems. Fish holds, inter alia, (i) that an interpretation of a statute, a poem, or some other text can be true or valid only in light of the interpretive strategies that define an interpretive community, and (ii) that no set of interpretive strategies (and therefore no interpretation) is truer (...) or more valid than any other. In this article, I discuss these claims critically and argue that the very idea of an interpretive community is more or less unintelligible, and that in any case Fish's theory is self-refuting. I begin with a few words about the methods and techniques of statutory interpretation(Section 2). I proceed by introducing Fish's theory of interpretation, giving special consideration to some difficulties in Fish's account of the concept of an interpretive community (Sections 3-4). I then introduce two types of relativism, cognitive and moral (Section 5), and argue that Fish's theory asserts cognitive relativism in the shape of conceptual relativism and relativism about truth (Section 6). Having done that, I consider Donald Davidson's well-known objection to alternative conceptual schemes (Section 7) as well as the popular charge that relativism about truth is self-refuting (Section 8). (shrink)

Precedent is a central feature of legal practice, requiring courts to follow decisions reached in earlier cases, thereby transforming the decisions in individual cases into a source of law. This article examines two major questions associated with precedent: (a) how to characterise the way that precedent operates as a source of law; and (b) how to justify the requirement that courts follow earlier decisions regardless of the merits of those decisions. Precedents are often thought to create general legal rules, but (...) it is controversial whether this is the best way to understand their role in legal reasoning. Equally, it is unclear that the most common justifications for precedent unequivocally vindicate the practice. (shrink)

In this paper, the author describes a dialogical approach tolegal argumentation from the perspective of argumentationtheory. In a pragma-dialectical approach of legalargumentation, the argumentation is considered to be part of acritical discussion aimed at the rational resolution of thedispute. The author describes how a pragma-dialecticalanalysis and evaluation of legal argumentation can be carriedout.

Contra recent, inflationary views, the paper submits a deflationary approach to legal ontology. It argues, in particular, that to answer ontological questions about legal entities, we only need conceptual analysis and empirical investigation. In developing this proposal, it follows Amie Thomasson’s ‘easy ontology’ and her strategy for answering whether ordinary objects exist. The purpose of this is to advance a theory that, on the one hand, does not fall prey to sceptical views about legal reality (viz., that ontological truths about (...) legal entities are established by metaphysical principles); and, on the other, is compatible with common-sense jurisprudence (viz., that there in fact exist legal entities, and they all have important practical implications). While this methodology is common to legal philosophers interested in elucidating the ‘artifactual nature’ of law, the paper departs from their projects by taking a step forward in connecting this deflationary approach to legal ontology with an expressivist account of legal discourse, thus providing enough resources to satisfy the general ambition of jurisprudence, viz., to establish the conditions for the analysis of legal reality and its normative character. (shrink)

This comprehensive volume features the proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Logics for New-Generation Artificial Intelligence and the International Workshop on Logic, AI and Law, held in Hangzhou, China on September 8-9 and 11-12, 2023. The collection offers a diverse range of papers that explore the intersection of logic, artificial intelligence, and law. With contributions from some of the leading experts in the field, this volume provides insights into the latest research and developments in the applications of logic in (...) these areas. It is an essential resource for researchers, practitioners, and students interested in the latest advancements in logic and its applications to artificial intelligence and law. (shrink)

This paper aims to perform a multi-level analysis of the Irish public discourse on Covid-19. Despite widespread agreement that Ireland’s response was rapid and effective, the country’s journey through the pandemic has been no easy ride. In order to contain the virus, the Government’s emergency legislation imposed draconian measures including the detention and isolation of people deemed to be even “a potential source of infection” and a significant extension of An Garda Síochána’s power of arrest. In April 2020, journalists John (...) Waters and Gemma O’Doherty initiated judicial review proceedings before the High Court to challenge such legislation, which they defined as unconstitutional, “disproportionate” and based on “fraudulent science”. The proceedings attracted widespread media coverage in what soon became a debate on the legitimacy of emergency legislation and the notion of ‘fake news’ itself. After a brief survey of the legislative background to Ireland’s Covid response, the argumentative strategy is analysed through which the High Court eventually dismissed Mr Waters and Ms O’Doherty’s challenge. Focusing on the process of justification of the judicial decision, the paper provides a descriptive account of the argument structure of the Court’s decision. This sheds light on the pattern of multiple argumentation through which the Court interpreted relevant norms in the Constitution and at once re-established the primacy of “facts” informing political decision-making at a time of national emergency. (shrink)

In this short paper, I argue that legal philosophers ought to focus more than they have done so far on problems of legal reasoning. Not only is this a field with many philosophically interesting questions to consider, but it is also, in my estimation, the field in which legal philosophers can contribute the most to both the study and the practice of law. For even though reasoning and interpretation are at the center of what legal practitioners and legal scholars do, (...) neither legal practitioners nor legal scholars reason with the same care and precision as philosophers do. Against this background, I suggest that the following three types of questions regarding legal reasoning are especially worthy of serious consideration. The first is that of the possible relevance of the theory of reasons holism to legal reasoning in general. The second is the question of how to analyze legal statements in a way that does not undermine the rationality of legal reasoning. And the third is the question of whether legal arguments are to be understood as deductive arguments, or as inductive arguments, or both, and if so how. (shrink)

In The Uses of Argument, Stephen Toulmin proposed a model for the layout of arguments: claim, data, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, backing. Since then, Toulmin’s model has been appropriated, adapted and extended by researchers in speech communications, philosophy and artificial intelligence. This book assembles the best contemporary reflection in these fields, extending or challenging Toulmin’s ideas in ways that make fresh contributions to the theory of analysing and evaluating arguments.

El objetivo de este artículo es hacer una reconstrucción racional del uso del examen de proporcionalidad en contextos de adjudicación judicial de derechos sociales constitucionales. Dicho trabajo de reconstrucción será desarrollado en dos pasos. En primer lugar, se tratará el interrogante referido a si el examen de proporcionalidad en su variante “por omisión” exhibe o no una estructura diferente con respecto a su, mucho más conocida e investigada, variante “por exceso”. En segundo lugar, se describirán las reglas y formas de (...) argumentación que están implícitas en el uso del examen de proporcionalidad por omisión y que componen a sus respectivos sub-exámenes de idoneidad, necesidad y proporcionalidad stricto sensu. Por último, se presentará un breve resumen a modo de conclusión. (shrink)

La motivación de los hechos se ha convertido en los últimos años en un tema de gran relevancia, especialmente porque empieza a ser analizado no tanto desde las herramientas tradicionales del Derecho Procesal sino desde la epistemología aplicada al trabajo de los jueces. En este trabajo, se presenta una serie de reflexiones a propósito de un medio de prueba cuyo uso por los tribunales constitucionales puede redundar en la construcción de la premisa fáctica a partir de criterios materiales: las diligencias (...) para mejor proveer. Cumplen el mismo propósito que los amicus curiae del Derecho anglosajón. Se presenta un doble análisis de este tipo de diligencias: uno relacionado con los principios generales de la teoría general del proceso, y otro con los problemas epistemológicos. Lo que se busca con este estudio es llamar la atención sobre la relevancia que pueden tener estas medidas cuando generan una genuina convicción de los jueces. Se considera que, aun cuando el propio sistema normativo ofrece esta gran herramienta epistemológica a los jueces, la misma es poco utilizada en nuestro país. (shrink)

Este trabajo bosqueja una teoría analítica y realista de la interpretación jurídica. Analítica, en el sentido que su método es el análisis lógico del lenguaje de los juristas. Realista, en el sentido que, por un lado, sostiene que el derecho es indeterminado y, por otro lado, representa la interpretación desarrollada por los jueces como una actividad intrínsecamente discrecional. En la primera parte, se introducen las distinciones fundamentales entre: interpretación “in abstracto” e interpretación “in concreto”; interpretación cognoscitiva, decisoria, y creativa; interpretación (...) en sentido estricto y construcción jurídica. Esta última distinción tiene una importancia especial: la interpretación en sentido estricto consiste en atribuir significado a un texto normativo, mientras que la construcción jurídica consiste en formular normas nuevas, que se pretenden implícitas en el sistema jurídico. En la segunda parte, se analizan, en su estructura lógica, las más difundidas técnicas argumentativas por las cuales los juristas suelen justificar sus operaciones interpretativas y constructivas. (shrink)

En su libro The Tapestry of Reason: An Inquiry into the Nature of Coherence and its Role in Legal Argument,1 Amalia Amaya argumenta las ventajas de adoptar una postura coherentista en el derecho. Concretamente, su tesis principal es la siguiente...

The present paper puts forward a first outline of a possible agonistic theory of adjudication, conceived of as an extension of Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic theory of democracy onto the domain of the juridical, and specifically, judicial decision-making. Mouffe’s concept of the political as the dimension of inherent and unalienable conflicts (antagonisms) which, nonetheless, need to be tamed for a pluralist democracy to function, creates an excellent vantage point for a critical theory of adjudication. The paper argues for perceiving all judicial (...) decisions as having a double nature—juridical and political. Cloaked in legal form, judgments nonetheless decide on individual instances of on-going collective conflicts, opposing workers to employers, consumers to traders, tenants to landlords, moral progressives to traditionalists, minorities to majorities and so forth. Judges, when handing down judgments, enjoy a ‘relative sovereignty’, being always already inscribed into the institutional imperatives of the juridical, on one hand, and ideological influences, on the other, but at the same time called upon to decide in the terrain of the undecidable and contingent (after all, law does not ‘apply itself’ on its own). Indeed the determinacy of legal decisions is only relative: in many cases judges can, by performing a sufficient amount of legal interpretive work, reach a conclusion which will be different from theprima facieinterpretation. The collective conflicts of a various nature (economic, ideological, socio-political), once they are juridified, become the object of judicial decisions which, in light of Mouffe’s theory, can be seen as temporary hegemonic fixations. The goal of critical legal scholarship is to destabilise such hegemonies in the name of justice. This can be done not only through an external critique of the law, but also through an internal one. The methodological approach advanced in the latter part of the paper emphasises the need for a critique of judicial decisions based on the consideration of all possible alternative decisions a court could have reached, and their evaluation in the light of conflicting interests and ideologies. (shrink)

The phenomenon of defeasibility has long been a central theme in legal literature. This essay aims to shed new light on that phenomenon by clarifying some fundamental conceptual issues. First, the most widespread definition of legal defeasibility is examined and criticized. The essay shows that such a definition is poorly constructed, inaccurate and generates many problems. Indeed, the definition hides the close relationship between legal defeasibility and legal interpretation. Second, this essay argues that no new definition is needed. I will (...) show that from an interpretative standpoint, there is nothing special about legal defeasibility. Contrary to what some authors maintain, no unique or privileged source of legal defeasibility exists, nor are there privileged arguments to justify it. Specifically, legal defeasibility refers to interpretative outcomes deriving from interpretative arguments that, on the one hand, are very different from one another, and, on the other, are often employed to justify different interpretative outcomes. In the legal field, the problems related to defeasibility have little in common with the problems that this label covers in other areas—such as logic or epistemology—and they are nothing but the well-known problems related to legal interpretation. In conclusion, this paper argues that as far as legal argumentation is concerned, the notion of legal defeasibility lacks explanatory power, and it should be abandoned. (shrink)

The proposed reflection intends to present the problem of judicial adjudication as a substantially-axiologically founded autonomous moment on the practical realization of law, and to explore this understanding in confrontation with external exigencies, mostly teleologically determined—hence, beyond strict deductive application, as a syllogistic reference of facts to norms, and finalistically determined decision, as an option among possible alternatives to achieve specific aims. The main objective is to enter into a discussion on the methodological meaning of “integrity”, “hard cases” and “right (...) answer”, as presented by Ronald Dworkin, and a critical reflection on the criticism of that approach levelled by Neil MacCormick, so as to confront the relevance of principle and policy arguments, in order to bring about a different methodological approach, an alternative jurisprudentialist conception of adjudication, incorporating a practical-normative constitutive dialectics between legal controversy and legal system, such as that presented by Castanheira Neves. The focus will, then, be the legitimacy of the connection of arguments of principle and consequentialist arguments in adjudication, its selection and its justification, stating, therefore, a specifically assumed judicium, a judicative decision, having the legal system as its horizon of normative reference and of substantial and institutional autonomy. (shrink)

The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...) reasons, for deductive arguments, e.g., semantic tableaux are suggested. (shrink)

El propósito principal de este trabajo es presentar un argumento crítico aplicable a aquellas posiciones interpretativistas según las cuales, en la medida en que el objetivo de la teoría jurídica es identificar y explicar conceptos institucionales, es imprescindible asumir la necesidad de un punto de vista interno. Una parte substancial del artículo está dedicada, por una parte, a mostrar la ambigüedad de esta tesis y, por otra, a justificar la distinción entre dos sentidos, uno epistemológico y otro pragmático, en los (...) que las expresiones “punto de vista interno” y “punto de vista externo” pueden ser entendidas. Detectar esta ambigüedad, en primer lugar, permite mostrar diferentes formas de entender los conceptos institucionales. En segundo lugar, hace posible captar un peculiar tipo de indeterminación que afecta a todo discurso referido a las instituciones sociales en general y a las instituciones jurídicas en particular. La tesis central sostenida en este trabajo es que, para identificar y explicar un concepto institucional, la teoría jurídica debe necesariamente adoptar un punto de vista interno en sentido epistemológico, pero no en sentido pragmático. En la parte final del ensayo se sugiere que es posible generalizar la crítica formulada a las posiciones interpretativistas que sostienen indistintamente la necesidad de un punto de vista interno y aplicarla también a aquellas posiciones según las cuales, para identificar y explicar un concepto institucional, debemos necesariamente adoptar un punto de vista externo. La conclusión es que no existe un único método de estudio en la teoría jurídica y, sobre todo, que dicho método depende del modo en el que se configure el objeto de estudio. En este caso, los conceptos institucionales o el contenido de las instituciones jurídicas. (shrink)

In contemporary society, as in classical Greece, we need citizens that deliberate well both for themselves and for society overall. Different competitors contend about the right principles in the theory of education. This paper holds that ‘character education’, descending from the ancient ethics of virtues, still represents the best option available for people who want to deliberate well for the common good. A special place in deliberation is taken by legal reasoning because the law is central in the distribution of (...) goods in our society. Rather than focusing only on rules and principles I follow the EV approach and focus on the qualities of the good decision-maker, the reasonable judge. The intellectual virtues of phronesis and techné combine those personal and professional qualities that we want at work in any judge. But it is the exercise of the civic art of rhetoric that expresses at best the public dimension of the reasonable judge. (shrink)

Seeing that socio-legal theory has produced a number of compelling grand theories about law’s development as a body of knowledge, this contribution analyzes legal evolution on the micro-level of decision-making in concrete cases. To that end, law finding is reconstructed as a three stage process of reason-based rule-construction. Legal evolution is argued to stem from the argumentative jumps that are made in this process in order to use what is initially drawn from the body of legal knowledge in new cases. (...) These jumps are justified by additional reasoning that plays a crucial role in that it brings new information to the law finding process. It is explained how this new information gets incorporated in the body of knowledge as a result of discursive maneuvers of legal practitioners. (shrink)

The question of whether the normative testimony of ethics experts should be admissible under the rules of evidence has been the subject of much debate. Professor Imwinkelried's paper is an effort to get us, for a moment, to change that subject. He seeks to turn our attention, instead, to a means by which bioethics experts’ normative analyses might come before the court without regard to the rules of evidence - a means lying formally outside those rules’ jurisdiction. The court, he (...) argues, may freely consider evidence from expert bioethicists so long as it is performing a legislative rather than an adjudicative function. The rules of evidence apply to the court's efforts to find the facts of a particular case, Imwinkelried argues, but they do not constrain the court's investigations relative to its creative law-making efforts. (shrink)

This paper defends a position that parts ways with the positivist view of legal certainty and reasonableness. I start out with a reconstruction of this view and move on to argue that an adequate analysis of certainty and reasonableness calls for an alternative approach, one based on the acknowledgement that argumentation is key to determining the contents, structure, and boundaries of a legal system. Here I claim that by endorsing a dialectical notion of rationality this alternative account espouses an ambitious (...) approach to reasoning in law and conceives of the theory of legal argumentation as the vantage point from which to analyze legal systems and tackle the main problems connected with their existence. Next, I look at what this alternative approach does for the way we should go about treating certainty and reasonableness, considered singularly as well as in their reciprocal relationship. I conclude on this basis that when argumentation receives its due emphasis in law we have to redefine certainty and reasonableness and recast their connection as non-conflictive. (shrink)

In all legal systems lawyers and judges appeal to general principles. These principles supposed to be taken from the very grounds of Justice. Accordingly they are presented as setting forth such an argument that it should defeat the opponent’s. In this paper I will be interested in the principle of legal certainty and in how it is is understood in Anglo-Saxon and a Continental legal cultures.

In law, the soundness of pragmatic argumentation in which a decision is defended by pointing to the consequences of the application of a particular legal rule, is often disputed. Some legal authors think that it is more of a rhetorical trick than a se rious attempt to convince in a rational way. Others think that it can be an acceptable way to defend a decision, provided that judges make explicit which value judgments underlie their decisions. I will sketch a pragma-dialectical (...) framework for pragmati c argumentation and describe the criteria for sound pragmatic argumentation in a legal context. (shrink)

Civil wars in England and America were catalysts in forming the jurisprudential views of Thomas Hobbes and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes's pragmatism advances a fundamentally distinct view of order from Hobbes's analytical theory. Holmes replaced the Hobbesian analytical model of law with an endogenous model that assimilates conflict in a process of formal but communal inquiry into discrete types of dispute. Holmes rejected the analytical boundary around law in favor of a holistic fallibilism, which like Dewey's encompasses all inquiry, (...) legal, scientific, aesthetic, and philosophical, under one ontological roof. Holmes also provided a practical critique of ideology, best known from the words of his famous dissent in Lochner v. New York: “The fourteenth amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics”; or, more to the point, “General propositions do not decide concrete cases.”. (shrink)

Anglo-American authors have paid little attention to a subtle distinction that has important jurisprudential implications. It is the distinction between sources of law and the legal norms which can be derived from sources by means of interpretation. The distinction might also be rendered as a threefold one, separating sources of law from legal norms and both of these from that which mediates their relation, namely, methods of legal interpretation. This paper intends to state the “source-norm” distinction clearly and to give (...) examples of jurisprudential insights that are missed, and mistakes that may be made if the distinction is not given its due. (shrink)

The theory of rhetoric is recognised and widely used in a number of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. It is therefore slightly surprising that it has not gained an important footing in jurisprudence. It is often argued that rhetoric and argumentative justification are clearly different issues. However, the present paper argues that they are in fact two aspects of argumentation and that the theory of rhetoric may be used also in the context of legal reasoning.

Argumentar constituye un quehacer cotidiano para los diferentes operadores jurídicos y, de modo especial, para quienes desempeñan la función judicial. Dado que las decisiones de los jueces están sometidas a un cierto control de racionalidad, es posible concebir las argumentaciones jurídicas empleadas en la aplicación del derecho como un modo institucionalizado de ejercitar la racionalidad práctica. Sin embargo, esto no implica, en contra de lo que a menudo se suele afirmar, que los procesos argumentatívos jurídicos estén sujetos en exclusiva a (...) las leyes de la lógica deductiva. Cabe sostener el carácter racional de la aplicación del derecho sin caer en un logicísmo a ultranza ni en una defensa de las artes de la retórica y de la tópica: ahí está, entre otras, la vía defendida por la teoría discursiva de la argumentación jurídica elaborada por Robert Alexy a partir de presupuestos básicamente habermasianos, así como las correcciones contextualistas de la misma llevadas a cabo por Klaus Günthcr. (shrink)