Legal justification by optimal coherence

Ratio Juris

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 304-329

  Amaya, Amalia ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859646281     PISSN: 09521917     EISSN: 14679337     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9337.2011.00486.x     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Abu-Hareira, Mohammed. 1986. An Early Conception of Judicial Fact-Finding. Juridical Review 79-106.
2. Alexy, Robert, and Aleksander Peczenik. 1990. The Concept of Coherence and its Significance for Discursive Rationality. Ratio Juris 3: 130-47.
3. Allen, Ronald. 1991. The Nature of Juridical Proof. Cardozo Law Review 13: 373-422.
4. Allen, Ronald. 1994. Factual Ambiguity and a Theory of Evidence. Northwestern University Law Review 58: 604-40.
5. Allen, Ronald. 1997. Rationality, Algorithms, and Juridical Proof: A Preliminary Inquiry. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof 1: 254-75.
6. Allen, Ronald, and Brian Leiter. 2001. Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence. Virginia Law Review 87: 1491-550.
7. Amaya, Amalia. 2007. Formal Models of Coherence and Legal Epistemology. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 15: 429-47.
8. Amaya, Amalia. 2008. Justification, Coherence, and Epistemic Responsibility in Legal Fact-Finding. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 5: 306-20.
9. Amaya, Amalia. 2009. Inference to the Best Legal Explanation. In Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic. Ed. H. Kaptein, H. Prakken, and B. Verheij, 135-59. Farnham: Ashgate.
10. Amaya, Amalia. Forthcoming. The Tapestry of Reason: An Inquiry into the Nature of Coherence and its Role in Legal Argument. Oxford: Hart.
11. Amaya, Amalia and Hock Lai Ho, eds. Forthcoming. Virtue, Law, and Justice. Oxford: Hart.
12. Atienza, Manuel. 2006. El derecho como argumentacion. Concepciones de la argumentacion. Barcelona: Ariel.
13. Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Giovanni Sartor. 2001. Theory-Based Explanation of Case Law Domains. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on AI and Law, 12-21. New York, NY: ACM.
14. Bench-Capon, Trevor, and Giovanni Sartor. 2003. A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence and Law 150: 97-113.
15. Bennett, W. Lance, and Martha Feldman. 1981. Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
16. BonJour, Laurence. 1985. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Bratman, Michael. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Damasio, Antonio R. 1994. Descartes' Error. New York, NY: Putnam's Sons.
19. DePaul, Michael. 1993. Balance and Refinement. London: Routledge.
20. DeRose, Keith. 1999. Contextualism: An Explanation and Defense. In The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, 187-206. Ed. J. Greco and E. Sosa. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
21. Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Dworkin, Ronald. 1985. A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law's Empire. London: Fontana.
24. Dworkin, Ronald. 1996. Objectivity and Truth. You'd Better Believe it. Philosophy and Public Affairs 25: 87-139.
25. Feldman, Richard. 2002. Epistemological Duties. In The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Ed. P. Moser, 362-84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Fogelin, Robert. 2003. Walking the Tightrope of Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Goldman, Alan. 1988. Moral Knowledge. London: Routledge.
28. Haack, Susan. 1999. A Foundherentist Theory of Empirical Justification. In Epistemology: An Anthology. Ed. E. Sosa and J. Kim, 226-36. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
29. Hage, Jaap. 2001. Formalizing Legal Coherence. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on AI and Law, 22-31. New York, NY: ACM.
30. Harman, Gilbert. 1965. Inference to the Best Explanation. The Journal of Philosophy 65: 529-33.
31. Hastie, Reid, and Nancy Pennington. 1991. A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision-Making. The Story Model. Cardozo Law Review 13: 519-57.
32. Hellman, Christina. 1995. The Notion of Coherence in Discourse. In Focus and Coherence in Discourse Processing. Ed. G. Rickheit and C. Habel, 190-202. Berlin: DeGruyter.
33. Holyoak, Keith, and Dan Simon. 1999. Bidirectional Reasoning in Decision-Making by Constraint Satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 128: 3-31.
34. Holyoak, Keith, and Paul Thagard. 1995. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Hurley, Susan. 1989. Natural Reasons: Personality and Polity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Jackson, Bernard. 1988. Law, Fact, and Narrative Coherence. Merseyside: Deborah Charles.
37. Joseph, Sindhu, and Henry Prakken. 2009. Coherence-Driven Argumentation to Norm Consensus. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 58-77. New York, NY: ACM.
38. Josephson, John. 2002. On the Proof Dynamics of Inference to the Best Explanation. In The Dynamics of Judicial Proof. Ed. M. MacCrimmon and P. Tillers, 287-306. Heidelberg: Springer.
39. Kitcher, Philip. 1992. The Naturalists Return. The Philosophical Review 101: 53-114.
40. Kornblith, Hilary. 1989. The Unattainability of Coherence. In The Current State of the Coherence Theory: Critical Essays on the Epistemic Theories of Keith Lehrer and Laurence BonJour. Ed. J.W. Bender, 207-14. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
41. Kornblith, Hilary. 1993. Naturalizing Epistemology. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
42. Kunda, Ziva. 1999. Social Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
43. Lehrer, Keith. 2000. Theory of Knowledge. Boulder, CO: Westview.
44. Leiter, Brian. 1998. Naturalism and Naturalized Jurisprudence. In Analyzing Law: New Essays in Legal Theory. Ed. B. Bix, 79-194. Oxford: Clarendon.
45. Levenbook, Barbara. 1984. Coherence in Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy 3: 355-74.
46. Lipton, Peter. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge. (1st ed. 1991.)
47. MacCormick, Neil. 1980. The Coherence of a Case and the Reasonableness of Doubt. Liverpool Law Review 2: 45-50.
48. MacCormick, Neil. 1984. Coherence in Legal Justification. In Theorie der Normen. Ed. W. Krawietz, H. Schelsky, and G. Winkler, 37-53. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
49. MacCormick, Neil. 1993. Argumentation and Interpretation in Law. Ratio Juris 6: 16-29.
50. MacCormick, Neil. 1994. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.
51. MacCormick, Neil. 2005. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. Margolis, Joseph. 1984. The Locus of Coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 3-30.
53. Montmarquet, James. 1993. Epistemic Virtue and Doxastic Responsibility. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
54. Moral, Leonor. 2003. A Modest Notion of Coherence in Legal Reasoning: A Model for the European Court of Justice. Ratio Juris 16: 296-323.
55. Moravcsik, J.M.E. 1990. Thought and Language. London: Routledge.
56. Pardo, Michael. 2000. Juridical Proof, Evidence, and Pragmatic Meaning: Toward Evidentiary Holism. Northwestern University Law Review 95: 399-442.
57. Peczenik, Aleksander. 1990. Coherence, Truth, and Rightness in Law. In Law, Interpretation, and Reality. Ed. P. Nerhot, 275-309. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
58. Peczenik, Aleksander. 1994. Law, Morality, Coherence, and Truth. Ratio Juris 7: 146-76.
59. Peczenik, Aleksander. 1998. A Coherence Theory of Juristic Knowledge. In Aulis Aarnio, Robert Alexy, Aleksander Peczenik, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Jan Wolenski, On Coherence Theory of Law, 7-15. Lund: Juristförlaget.
60. Peczenik, Aleksander, and Jaap Hage. 2004. Legal Knowledge about What? Ratio Juris 13: 326-45.
61. Plantinga, Alvin. 1993. Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62. Pryor, James. 2001. Highlights of Recent Epistemology. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52: 95-124.
63. Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (1st ed. 1971.)
64. Raz, Joseph. 1986. Dworkin: A New Link in the Chain. California Law Review 74: 1103-19.
65. Raz, Joseph. 1992. The Relevance of Coherence. Boston University Law Review 72: 273-320.
66. Richardson, Henry. 1994. Practical Reasoning about Final Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67. Schum, David. 2002. Species of Abductive Reasoning in Fact Investigation in Law. In The Dynamics of Judicial Proof. Ed. M. MacCrimmon and P. Tillers, 307-36. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
68. Shogenji, Tomoji. 2001. The Role of Coherence in Epistemic Justification. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79: 90-106.
69. Simon, Dan. 1998. A Psychological Model of Judicial Decision-Making. Rutgers Law Journal 30: 1-142.
70. Simon, Dan. 2004. A Third View of the Black Box: Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision-Making. The University of Chicago Law Review 71: 511-86.
71. Solum, Lawrence. 2003. Virtue Jurisprudence: A Virtue-Centred Theory of Judging. In Moral and Epistemic Virtues. Ed. M. Brandy and D. Pritchard, 163-98. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
72. Solum, Lawrence, and Colin Farrelly, eds. 2008. Virtue Jurisprudence. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
73. Taruffo, Michele. 1992. La prova dei fatti giuridici. Milan: Giuffrè.
74. Thagard, Paul. 1992. Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
75. Thagard, Paul. 2000. Coherence in Thought and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
76. Thagard, Paul. 2003. Why Wasn't O.J. Convicted? Emotional Coherence in Legal Inference. Cognition and Emotion 17: 361-83.
77. Thagard, Paul, and Elijah Millgram. 1996. Deliberative Coherence. Synthese 108: 63-88.
78. Thagard, Paul, and Karsten Verbeurgt. 1998. Coherence as Constraint Satisfaction. Cognitive Science 22: 1-24.
79. Timmons, Mark. 1999. Morality without Foundations: A Defense of Ethical Contextualism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
80. Twining, William. 2002. The Great Juristic Bazaar. Aldershot: Ashgate.
81. Twining, William. 2006. Rethinking Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1st ed. 1990.)
82. Van Fraassen, Bas. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon.
83. Wacks, Raymond 1984. Judges and Injustice. South African Law Journal 101: 286-94.
84. Wagenaar, Willem A., Peter J. van Koppen, and Hans F.M. Crombag. 1993. Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. New York, NY: St. Martin's.
85. Walker, Ralph C.S. 1989. The Coherence Theory of Truth: Realism, Anti-Realism, Idealism. London: Routledge.
86. Williams, Michael. 1980. Coherence, Justification, and Truth. Review of Metaphysics 34: 243-72.
87. Williams, Michael. 1999. Groundless Belief: An Essay on the Possibility of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (1st ed. 1979.)
88. Williams, Michael. 2001. Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
89. Zagzebski, Linda. 1996. Virtues of the Mind. An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.