Dialogical theory of legal discussions: Pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 115-135

  Feteris, Eveline T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LAWS AND LEGISLATION;

DIALOGICAL THEORY; LEGAL ARGUMENTATION; PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL THEORY;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 0034206033     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1008344203269     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alexy, R. 1989. A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Clarendon Press, Oxford. (Translation of Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. (1978).)
2. Alexy, R. 1989. A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Clarendon Press, Oxford. (Translation of Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. (1978).)
3. Eemeren, F. H. van 1987. 'Argumentation studies' five estates'. In Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices. Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Speech Communication Association, Annandale (VA), pp. 9-24.
4. Eemeren, F. H. van and Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Erlbaum, New York.
5. Eemeren, F. H. van, Feteris, E. T., Grootendorst, R., van Haaften, T., den Harder, W., Kloosterhuis, H., Kruiger, T., Plug, J. 1991. Argumenteren voor Juristen. Het analyseren en schrijven van juridische betogen en beleidsteksten. (Argumentation for lawyers) (second edition, first edition 1987) Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.
6. Eemeren, F. H. van and Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ.
7. Feteris, E. T. 1987. 'The dialectical role of the judge in a Dutch legal process'. In J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices. Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Speech Communication Association, Annandale (VA), pp. 335-339.
8. Feteris, E. T. 1989. Discussieregels in het recht. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van het burgerlijk proces en het strafproces. Foris, Dordrecht.
9. 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 26(3), 108-117.
10. Feteris, E. T. 1991. 'Normative reconstruction of legal discussions'. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, June 19-22 1990. SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 768-775.
11. Feteris, E. T. 1993a. '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. Speech Communication Association, Annandale, pp. 476-480.
12. Feteris, E. T. 1993b. 'Rationality in legal discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective'. Informal Logic XV(3), 179-188.
13. Feteris, E. T. 1994a. 'Recent developments in legal argumentation theory: dialectical approaches to legal argumentation'. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, VII(20), 134-153.
14. Feteris, E. T. 1994b. Redelijkheid in juridische argumentatie. Een overzicht van theorieën over het rechtvaardigen van juridische beslissingen. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle.
15. Feteris, E. T. 1995. 'The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation from a pragma-dialectical perspective'. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. IV, pp. 42-51.
16. Feteris, E. T. 1997a. 'The analysis and evaluation of argumentation in Dutch criminal proceedings from a pragma-dialectical perspective'. In J. F. Nijboer and J. M. Reijntjes (eds.), Proceedings of the First World Conference on New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence, Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, pp. 57-62.
17. Feteris, E. T. 1997b. 'De deugdelijkheid van pragmatische argumentatie: heiligt het doel de middelen?'. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier (eds.), Op goede gronden. Bijdragen aan het Tweede Symposium Juridische Argumentatie. Ars Aequi, Nijmegen, pp. 98-107.
18. Feteris, E. T. (1998). 'The soundness of 'pragmatic' or 'consequentialist' argumentation: does the end justify the means?'. In H. Hansen and C. Tindale (eds.), Proceedings of the OSSA Conference on Argumentation and Rhetoric.
19. Gordon, Th. F. 1995. The Pleadings Game, an Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
20. Hage, J. C. 1996. 'A model of legal reasoning and a logic to match'. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3-4), 199-273.
21. Haaften, T. van 1997. 'Over de status van taalkundige argumenten in juridische betogen'. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier (eds.), Op goede gronden. Bijdragen aan het Tweede Symposium Juridische Argumentatie. Ars Aequi, Nijmegen, pp. 90-97.
22. Hage, J. C. 1997. Reasoning with Rules. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
23. Hage, J. C., Span, G. P. J., and Lodder, A. R. 1992. 'A dialogical model of legal reasoning', In C. A. F. M. Grütiers et al. (eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems, Information Technology and Law. JURIX '92. Koninklijke Vermande, Lelystad, pp. 135-146.
24. Hage, J. C., Leenes, R., and Lodder, A. 1994. 'Hard cases; a procedural approach'. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 113-167.
25. Jansen, H. 1997. 'Voorwaarden voor aanvaardbare a contrario-argumentatie'. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier (eds.), Op goede gronden. Bijdragen aan het Tweede Symposium Juridische Argumentatie. Ars Aequi, Nijmegen, pp. 123-131.
26. Kloosterhuis, H. 1994. 'Analysing analogy argumentation in judicial decisions'. In F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-dialectics. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 238-246.
27. Kloosterhuis, H. 1995. 'The study of analogy argumentation in law: Four pragma-dialectical starting points'. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and Ch. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Special Fields and Cases, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 138-145.
28. Kloosterhuis, H. 1996. 'The normative reconstruction of analogy argumentation in judicial decisions: a pragma-dialectical perspective'. In D. M. Gabbay and H. J. Ohlbach (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp. 375-383.
29. Loui, R. P. and Norman, J. 1995. 'Rationales and argument moves'. Artificial Intelligence and Law 3(3), pp. 159-189.
30. MacCormick, N. 1978. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 262-263
31. MacCormick, N. and Summers, R. 1991. Interpreting Statutes. Darthmouth, Aldershot.
32. Plug, H. J. 1994. 'Reconstructing complex argumentation in judicial decisions'. In F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-dialectics. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 246-255.
33. Plug, H. J. 1995. 'The rational reconstruction of additional considerations in judicial decisions'. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and Ch.A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Special Fields and Cases, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 61-72.
34. Plug, H. J. 1996 'Complex argumentation in judicial decisions. Analysing conflicting arguments'. In D. M. Gabbay and H. J. Ohlbach (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning. Springer, Berlin, pp. 464-479.
35. Prakken, H. 1993. Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. Dissertation. Amsterdam.
36. Prakken, H. 1995. 'From logic to dialectics in legal argument'. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, New York, pp. 165-174.
37. Prakken, H. 1997. 'Logica, debat en procedure in juridische argumentatie'. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier (eds.), Op goede gronden. Bijdragen aan het Tweede Symposium Juridische Argumentatie. Ars Aequi, Nijmegen, pp. 132-138.
38. Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1996. 'A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning'. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3/4), 331-368.
39. Sartor, G. 1994. 'A formal model of legal argumentation'. Ratio Juris 7, 177-211.