Titlebook: Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives; Christian Dahlman,Eveline Feteris Book 2013 Springer Science+Business Media D

即席

Fallacies in , Arguments,uments. An argument . is an argument that makes a claim about the reliability of a person in the performance of a certain function, based on some attribute relating to the person in question. On the basis of this definition, we examine the different ways that . arguments can go wrong, and classify t

spondylosis

The Rule of Law and the Ideal of a Critical Discussion,proach it is assumed that a legal argumentation theory should integrate descriptive and normative perspectives on argumentation. Legal discourse should be studied as a sample of normal verbal communication and interaction and it should at the same time, be measured against certain standards of reaso

無孔

malign

慢跑鞋

Weighing and Balancing in the Light of Deliberation and Expression,sed to critique the role Marko Novak assigns to rationality in balancing and Robert Alexy’s idealized weight formula. Finally, by examining the relation between deliberation and expression I argue that a written legal decision represents the possibility of someone understanding and evaluating that d

臭了生氣

Construction or Reconstruction? On the Function of Argumentation in the Law,are. Legal constructivism is opposed to reconstructivism, the view that legal arguments merely aim at establishing what the independently existing legal consequences are. It is first argued that legal reconstructivism is at best a view that can neither be verified nor falsified, and that legal argum

Pillory

手勢

Constitutive Rules and Coherence in Legal Argumentation: The Case of Extensive and Restrictive Intepts. A remarkable exception that devoted some (non-systematic) effort to this link is, for instance, the work by MacCormick (2005). This paper aims at offering a fresh contribution to this research issue by developing a theory of the extensive and restrictive interpretation of legal provisions. We s

惹人反感

生意行為