Reviewing Argument Schemes for Legal Arguments of Statutory Interpretation
Article Sidebar
You are free to:
Share, copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the terms of the license.
Under the following terms:
Acknowledgment:
You must give proper credit , provide a link to the license , and indicate if any changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any manner that suggests that the licensor endorses you or your use.
Non-Commercial:
You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No Additional Restrictions:
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license allows.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for items of material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No guarantees are given. The license may not give you all the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
Main Article Content
Abstract
The current legal paradigm assumes that legal decisions must be justified. Judges use arguments as tools to accomplish this justification. Thus, this research presents an analysis to explain and illustrate arguments of statutory interpretation, given that the plain language of legal rules is not always sufficient to give all the answers needed for a legal decision. The theoretical analysis presented here, based on the relevant literature, aims to review some of the main concepts necessary for legal arguments of statutory interpretation and their possible relation to argument schemes. The reviewed arguments schemes advance arguments that avoid absurd results, as well as those that reflect the legislation’s purpose and the legislator’s intention. Overall, this study demonstrates how one can present arguments or evaluate and reconstruct them in the legal field. Specifically, reviewing argument schemes for legal arguments of statutory interpretation can help refine some of the main features of legal argumentation and highlight the necessary interpretation to accomplish them.
Article Details
References
Alvarez, M. (2018). Reasons for action, acting for reasons, and rationality. Synthese, 195(8), 3293-3310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-1005-9
Bertea, S. (2017). Why one’s practical reasons are not just one’s own private affair. Philosophical Inquiry, 41(1), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.5840/philinquiry20174115
Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s empire. Harvard University Press.
Feteris, E. (2017). Fundamentals of legal argumentation: A survey of theories on the legal justification of judicial decisions (2nd ed.). Springer.
Hart, H. L. A. (1982). Commands and authoritative legal reasons. In Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and political theory (pp. 243-268). Oxford University Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press.
Huhn, W. (2014). The five types of legal argument (3rd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2017). Arguments of statutory interpretation and argumentation schemes. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 2(1), 47-83. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-0002
MacCormick, N., & Summers, R. (Eds.). (1991). Interpreting statutes: A comparative study. Dartmouth.
MacCormick, N. (1993). Argumentation and interpretation on law. Ratio Juris, 6(1), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.1993.tb00135.x
Schauer, F. (2009). Thinking like a lawyer: A new introduction to legal reasoning. Harvard University Press.
Shecaira, F. P., & Struchiner, N. (2016a). Peculiaridades da argumentação sobre fatos no campo do direito. Teoria Jurídica Contemporânea, 1(1), 126-143. https://doi.org/10.21875/tjc.v1i1.3412
Shecaira, F. P., & Struchiner, N. (2016b). Teoria da argumentação jurídica. Contraponto Editora, PUC Rio.
Sinnot-Armstrong, W., & Fogelin, R. (2014). Understanding arguments: An introduction to informal logic (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Sustein, C. R. (2018). Legal reasoning and political conflict (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Tarello, G. (1980). L’interpretazione della legge. Giuffrè.
Walton, D., & Godden, D. M. (2005). The nature and status of critical questions in argumentation schemes. OSSA Conference Archive, 56, 476-484. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1470&context=ossaarchive
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.