Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives

<p>Table of Contents.- Introduction; Christian Dahlman and Eveline Feteris.- Reasoning by Consequences: Applying Different Argumentation Structures to the Analysis of Consequentialist Reasoning in Judicial Decisions; Flavia Carbonell.- On the Argumentum ad Absurdum Statutory Interpretation: its Uses and Normative Significance; Thomas Bustamante.- Why precedent in law (and elsewhere) is not totally (or even substantially) about analogy; Frederick Schauer.- Fallacies in Ad Hominem Arguments; Christian Dahlman, David Reidhav and Lena Wahlberg.- The Rule of Law and the Ideal of a Critical Discussion; Harm Kloosterhuis.- Strategic Maneuvering with the Argumentative Role of Legal Principles in the Case of the “Unworthy Spouse”; Eveline Feteris.- Legal argumentation and the normativity of legal Norms; Carlos Bernal.- Weighing and Balancing in the Light of Deliberation and Expression; Bruce Anderson.- Construction or reconstruction? On the Function of Argumentation in the Law; Jaap Hage.- The Argument from Psychological Typology for a Mild Separation between the Context of Discovery and the Context of Justification; Marko Novak.- Constitutive Rules and Coherence in Legal Argumentation: The Case of Extensive and Restrictive Interpretation; Antonino Rotolo and Corrado Roversi.- Is Balancing a Method of Rational Justification sui generis?; Jan Sieckmann.- Arguing on Facts. Truth, Trials and Adversary Procedures.; Giovanni Tuzet.- Index.</p>