BmLIOGRAPHY

Aarnio, A. (1977). On legal reasoning. Turku: Turon Yliopisto. Aarnio, A. (1978). Legal point of view. Six essays on legal philosophy. Helsinki (translated from the Finnish by Jyrki Uusitalo). Aarnio, A. (1979). Denkweisen der Rechtswissenschaft. WieniNew York: Springer. Aarnio, A. (1979). 'Linguistic philosophy and legal theory. Some problems of legal argumentation'. In: Krawietz et al. (eds.), pp. 17·41. Aarnio, A. (1981). 'On truth and the acceptability of interpretative propositions in legal dogmatics'. In: Aarnio, Niiniluoto, Uusitalo (eds.), pp. 33·52. Aarnio, A. (1983). 'Argumentation theory - and beyond. Some remarks on the rationality of legal justification'. Rechtstheorie, Vol. 14, No.4, pp. 385-400. Aarnio, A. {1987}. The rational as reasonable. A treatise of legal justification. Dordrecht etc.: Reidel. Aarnio, A. (1991). 'Statutory interpretation in Finland'. In: MacCormick, Summers (eds.), pp. 123·170. Aarnio, A, R. Alexy, A. Peczenik (1981). 'The foundation of legal reasoning'. Rechtstheorie, Band 21, No.2, pp. 133·158, No.3, pp. 257·279, No.4, pp. 423-448. Aarnio, A., I. Niiniluoto,J. Uusitalo (eds.) (1981).MethodologieundErkenntnistheone der juristischen A rgumentation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Alexy, R. (1978). Theone der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theone des rationalen Diskunes als Theone der juristischen BegrUndung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. (Second edition 1991 with a reaction to critics) Alexy, R. (1979a). 'Aarnio, Perelman und Wittgenstein. Einige Bemerkungen zu Aulis Aamios Begriff der Rationalitat der juristischen argumentation'. In: Peczenik, Uusitalo {eds.}, pp. 121·139. Alexy, R. {1979b}. 'Zum Begriff des Rechtsprinzips'. In: Krawietz et al. (eds.), pp. 68·87. Alexy, R. (1980a). Rechtstheone, Band 11, No.2, pp. 120-128. Review of N. MacCormick, Legal reasoning and legal theory, 1978. Alexy, R. (1980b). 'Die logische Analyse juristischer Entscheidungen'. In: Hassemer et al. (eds.), pp. 181·212. Alexy, R. (1981). 'Die Idee einer prozeduralen Theorie der juristischen Argumen· tation'. In: Aamio, Niiniluoto, Uusitalo (eds.), pp. In·188. Alexy, R. {1989}. A theory of legal argumentation. The theory of rational discoune as theory of legal justification. Oxford: darendon press. (Translation of: Theone der juristischen A rgumentation. Die Theone des rationalen Diskunes als Theone der juristischen BegrUndung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1978). Alexy, R. (1990). 'Juristische Begriindung, System und Koharenz'. In: O. Behrends, M. Diesselhorst, R. Dreier (eds.) , Rechtsdogmatik und praktische Vemunft. Gottingen: VandenHoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 95·107. Alexy, R. (1990). 'Problems of discursive rationality in law'. Archiv for Rechts· und Sozialphilosophie, Vol. 42, pp. 174-179.

205

206 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexy, R. (1991). Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationaien Diskurses ais Theorie der juristischen Begrundung. (Second edition with a reaction to critics) Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Alexy, R., A. Peczenik (1990). 'The concept of coherence and its significance for discursive Rationality'. Ratio Juris, Vol. 3, Nr. 1, pp. 130-147. T. Anderson, W. Twining (1991). Analysis of evidence. Boston and London: Butterworths. Angeles, P.A., (1981). Dictionary of philosophy. New York etc.: Barnes & Noble Asbell Sheppard, S., R.D. Rieke (1983). 'Categories of reasoning in legal argument'. In: Zarefsky et al. (eds.), pp. 235-250. Atienza, M. (1990). 'For a theory of legal argumentation'. Rechtstheorie, Band 21, pp. 393-414. Atiyah, P.S., R.S. Summers (1987). Form and substance in Anglo·American law. A comparative study of legal reasoning, legal theory and legal institutions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ballweg, O. (1982). 'Phronetik, Semiotik undRhetorik'. In: Ballweg, Seibert (eds.), pp.27-71. Ballweg, 0., T.M. Seibert (eds.) (1982). RhetorischeRechtstheorie. Zum 75. Geburtstag von Theodor Viehweg. Freiburg etc.: K. Alber. Benoit, W.L. (1981). 'An empirical investigation of argumentative strategies employed in Supreme Court opinions'. In: Ziegelmueller, Rhodes (eds.), pp. 179-196. Benoit, W.L. (1989). 'Attorney argumentation and Supreme Court opinions'. In: Argumentation and Advocacy, Vol. 26, No.1, pp. 22-38. Benoit, W.L., J.S. France (1980). 'Analogical reasoning in legal argumentation'. In: Rhodes and Newell (eds.), pp. 48-60. Bickenbach,J.E. (1990). 'The "artificial reason" ofthe law'. Informal Logic, Vol. 12, No.1, p. 23-32. Brouwer, P.W., T. HoI, A. Soeteman, W.G. van der Velden, A.H. de Wild (eds.) (1992). Coherence and Conflict in Law. Proceedings of the 3rd Benelux-Scandinavian Symposium in legal theory. Amsterdam,January 3-5,1991, Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink. Buchanan, R.W. (1987). 'The American jury trial: the art of argument in voir dire and opening statements'. In: Van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 131-141. Bund, E. (1983). Juristische Logik und Argumentation. Freiburg: Rombach. Burton, S.J. (1985). An introduction to law and legal reasoning. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown. Canaris, C. W. (1969). Systemdenken und Systembegri/J in der Jurisprudenz, entwickelt am Beispliel des deutschen Privatrechts. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Carter, L.H. (1984). Reason in law. (fourth edition) Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown. Christie, G.C. (1993). 'The universal audience and the law'. In: Haarscher (ed.), pp. 43-68. Clemens, Ch. (1977). Strukturen juristischer Argumentation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Copi, I. (and C. Cohen) (1990). Introduction to logic, New York: Macmillan (eighth edition). Dellapenna, j.W., K.M. Farrell (1987). 'Modes of judicial discourse: the search for argument fields'. In: van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 94-101.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 207

Dicks, V.I. (1976). 'Courtroom controversy: A stasis/stock issue analysis of the Angela Davis trial'. Journal of the American Forensic Association, Vol. 13, pp. 77-83. Dicks, V.1. (1981). 'Courtroom rhetorical strategies: forensic and deliberative perspectives'. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67, pp. 178-192. Dickens, M., R.E. Schwartz (1971). 'Oral argument before the Supreme Court: Marshall v. Davis in the school segregation cases'. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 57, pp.32-42. Dunbar, N., M. Cooper (1981). 'A situational perspective for the study of legal argument. A case study of Brown v. Board of education'. In: Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 213-241. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press. Dworkin, R. (1986). Law's empire. London: Fontana. Eemeren, F.H. van, (1987). 'Argumentation studies' five estates'. In: Wenze! (ed.), pp.9-24. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma.dialectical perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, F. Snoeck Henkemans (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah (N.J).: Erlbaum. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, S. Jacobs (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa (AL): University of Alabama Press. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard (eds.) (1987). Argumentation: Analysis and practices. Proceedings of the conference on argumen­tation 1986. Dordrecht: Foris. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard (eds.) (1991). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, Amsterdam: Sicsat. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, ].A. Blair, C.A. Willard (eds.) (1995). Proceedings of the Third International Conference on A rgumentation, Amsterdam: Sicsat. Eemeren, F.H. van, E.T. Feteris, R. Grootendorst, T. van Haaften, W. den Harder, H. Kloosterhuis, ]. Plug (1996). Argumenteren voor juristen. Het analyseren en schrijven van juridische betogen en beleidsteksten. (A rgumentation for lawyers) (third edition, first edition 1987) Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Ehrlich, E. (1925). Die juristische Logik. Tiibingen: Aalen. Engisch, K. (1956). EinfUhrung in das juristische Denken. Stuttgart etc.: Urban. Engisch, K. (1960). Logische Studien zur Gesetzesanwendung. Heidelberg: Winter. Enos, R.L. (1980). 'Emerging notions of argument and advocacy in Hellenic litigation: Antiphon's "On the murder of Herodes"'. Journal of the American Forensic Association, Vol. 17, p. 182-191. Esser, J. (1979). Juristisches Argumentieren im Wandel des Rechtsjindungskonzepts unseres Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Winter. Feteris, E.T. (1987) 'The dialectical role of the judge in a Dutch legal process'. In: Wenzel (ed.), pp. 335-339.

208 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Feteris, E.T. (1989). Discussieregels in het recht. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van het burgerlijk proces en het strafproces. (Rules for discussion in law. A pragma-dialectical analysis of the Dutch civil process and criminal process). Dordrecht: Foris. 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. Vol. 26, No.3, pp. 108-117. Feteris, E. T. (1991). 'Normative reconstruction oflegal discussions'. In: van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 768-775. Feteris, E.T. (1993a). 'The judge as a critical antagonist in a legal process: a pragma­dialectical perspective'. In: R.E. McKerrow (ed.), Argument and the Postmodern Challenge. Proceedings of the eighth SCA/AFA Conference on argumentation. Annandale: Speech Communication Association, pp. 476-480. Feteris, E.T. (1993b). 'Rationality in legal discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective'. Informal Logic, Vol. XV, No.3, pp. 179-188. Feteris, E.T. (1994). 'Recent developments in legal argumentation theory: dialectical approaches to legal argumentation'. International Journal for the Semiotics of lAw, Vol. VIT, No. 20, pp. 134-153. Feteris, E.T. (1995). 'The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation from a pragma-dialectical perspective'. In: van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Vol. IV, pp. 42-51. Feteris, E.T. (1996) 'The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation from a pragma-dialectical perspective'. In: D.M. Gabbay, H.J. Ohlbach (eds.), Practical reasoning. International conference on formal and applied practical reasoning, F APR '96. Bonn, June 1996. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin etc.: Springer, pp. 151-463. Feteris, E. T. (1997). 'The analysis and evaluation of argumentation in Dutch criminal proceedings from a pragma-dialectical perspective'. In: J.F. Nijboer, J.M. Reijntjes (eds') , Proceedings of the First World Conference on New Trends in Criminal Investigation and Evidence. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande, pp. 57-62. Feteris, E.T. (1998a). '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 A rgumentation and Rhetoric, Brock University, May 15-17 1997. Feteris, E.T. (1998b). 'What went wrong in the ballpoint case? An argumentative anlaysis and evaluation of the discussion in the ballpoint case'. In: J.F. Nijboer (ed.). Hard cases in criminal evidence. Feteris, E.T., J. Schuetz (eds.) (1995). Faces of North American and European legal argument. Argumentation, Vol. 9, No.5. Feteris, E.T., H. Kloosterhuis, H.J. Plug, ].A. Pontier (eds.) (1994). Met redenen omkleed. Bijdragen aan het symposium juridische argumentatie, Rotterdam 11 juni 1993. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi. Feteris, E. T., H. Kloosterhuis, H.J. Plug, J .A. Pontier (eds.) (1997). Op goede gronden. Bijdragen aan het tweede symposium juridische argumentatie, Rotterdam 14 juni 1996. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi. Fiedler, H. (1966). 'Juristische Logik im mathematischerSicht. Einige Bemerkungen und Beispiele: Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, Band 52, pp. 93-116.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 209

Fuller, L.L. (1969). The morality of law. (First edition 1964) New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Fuller, L.L. (1972). 'The justification of legal decisions'.ln: DieJuristische Argumen· tation, pp. 77·92. Gamut, L.T.F. (1991). Logic, Language, and Meaning. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Golden, J.L., J. J. Pilotta (eds.) (1986). Practical reasoning in human affairs. Studies in honor of Chaim Perelman. Dordrecht etc.: Reidel. Golding, M.P. (1984). Legal reasoning. New York: Knopf. Gottlieb, G. (1968). The logic of choice. An investigation of the concepts of rule and rationality. London: George Allen & Unwin. Gronbeck, B.E. (ed.) (1989). Spheres of argument. Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation. Annandale 01 A): SCA. Giinther, K. (1989). 'Ein normativer Begriff der Koharenz. Fur eine Theorie der juristischen Argumentation'. Rechtstheone, Band 20, pp. 163·190. Haack, S. (1978). Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. Haarscher, G. (1993). Chaim Perelman et la pensee contemporaine. Brussels: Bruylant. Habermas, J. (1971). 'Theorie der Gesellschaft onder Sozialtechnologie? Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Niklas Luhmann'. In: J. Habermas and N. Luhmann, Theone der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie? Frankfun a.M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 101· 14l. Habermas (1973). 'Wahrheitstheorieen.' In: H. Fahrenbach (ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion. Pfullingen, pp. 211·265. Habermas, J. (1981). Theone des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfun a.M.: Suhrkamp. Habermas, J. (1983). Moralbewusstsein und Kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfun a.M.: Suhrkamp. Habermas, J. (1984). Vorstudien und Erganzungen zur Theone des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Habermas, J. (1988). Recht und Moral. Zwei Vorlesungen. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Habermas, J. (1988). The Tanner Lectures on human values, Vol. 8. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Habermas, J. (1990), Moral consciousness and communicative action. (Translation of Moralbesusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln, 1983) Cambridge (Mass): The MIT Press. Habermas, J. (1992). Faktiziziit und Geltung. Beitrage zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfun a.M.: Suhrkamp. Haft, F. (1981). Juristische Rhetonk. Freiburg etc.: Alber. Hagan, M.R. (1976). 'Roe v. Wade: the rhetoric of fetal life'. Central States Speech Journal, Vol. 27, No.3, pp. 192·199. Hage, J.e. (1991). 'Monological reason based logic'. In: J.A. Breuker (ed.), Legal knowledge based systems, model based reasoning. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande, pp. 77·91. Hage, J.e., R. Leenes, A.R. Lodder (1994). 'Hard cases: a procedural approach'. Artificial intelligence and law, (2), pp. 113·167.

210 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hage, J.C., G.P.J. Span and A.R. Lodder (1992). 'A dialogical model of legal reasoning', In: C.A.F.M. Griitters et al. (eds.) , Legal knowledge based systems, information technology and law. JURIX '92, Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande, pp. 135-146. Hample, D. (1979). 'Motives in law: An adaptation of legal realism'. Journal of the American Forensic Association, Vol. 15, No.3, pp. 156-154. Hare, R.M. (1963). Freedom and reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Han, H.L.A. (1958). 'Positivism and the separation of law and morals'. Harvard Law Review, pp. 71 ff. Han, H.L.A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Han, H.L.A. (1972). 'Problems of philosophy of law'. In: P. Edwards (ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy. Volume 5/6. New York/London: Macmillan, pp. 264-276. Hassemer, W. (1972). 'Juristische Argumentationstheorie und juristische Didaktik'. In: Alben et al. (eds.), Rechtstheorie als Grundlagenwissenschaft der Rechtswissenschaft. Dusseldorf: Benelsmann, pp. 467-480. Hassemer, W., A. Kaufmann, U. Neumann (eds.) (1980). Argumentation und Recht. Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, Beiheft Neue Folge Nr. 14. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Henket, M. (1987). 'Ne bis in idem and related princples'. In: van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 123-130. Henket, M. (1991). 'Analogy and rules in practical reasoning'. In: van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 790-800. Henket, M. (1992). 'On the logical analysis of judicial decisions'. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, Vol. v, No. 14, pp. 152-164. Henket, M.M., P.J. van den Hoven (1990). Juridische vaardigheden in argumentatief verband. (Legal skills in an argumentative context) Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Herbeck, D.A. (1995a). 'Cricial Legal Studies and argumentation theory'. A rgumen· tation, Vol. 9, No.5, pp. 719-729. Herbeck, D.A. (1995b). 'The problems of jurisprudence and argumentation theory'. In: van Eemeren et al., Vol. IV, pp. 3-13. Herberger M., D. Simon (1989). Wissenschaftstheoriefur Juristen. Frankfun a.M.: Metzner. Hohmann, H. (1991). 'Fallacies and legal argumentation'. In: van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 776-781. Hohmann, H. (1995). 'Logic and rhetoric in legal argumentation: Some medieval perspectives'. In: F.H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Vol. IV, pp. 14-30. Hollihan, T.A., P. Riley, K. Freadhoff (1986). 'Arguing for justice: an analysis of arguing in small claims coun'. Journal of the A merican Forensic Association, Vol. 22, No.4, pp. 187-195. Hom, N. (1967). 'Zur Bedeutung der Topiklehre Theodor Viehwegs rur eine einheitliche Theorie des juristischen Denkens'. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, pp. 601-608. Horovitz, J. (1972). Law and logic. A critical account of legal argument. Wien etc.: Springer. Hoven, P.J. van den (1988). 'Rechtszekerheid, rechtvaardigheid, verstaanbaarheid'. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, Vol. 10, No.3, pp. 209-219.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 211

llie, C. (1995). 'The validity of rhetorical questions as arguments in the courtroom'. In: van Eemeren et al., Vol. IV, pp. 73-88. Jackson, B. S. (1988). Law,fact and narrative coherence. Roby, Merweyside: Deborah Charles. Janas, M. (1995). 'Structure, aesthetics, rhetoric and Posner's theory of justice'. In: van Eemeren et al., Vol. IV, pp. 97-110. Jansen, H. (1996). 'De beoordeling van a contrario-argumentatie' (The evaluation of a contrario argumentation). Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, Vol. 18, pp. 240-254. Jansen, H. (1997). 'Voorwaarden voor aanvaardbare a contrario argumentatie (Conditions for sound a contrario argumentation),. In: E.T. Feteris et al. (eds.), pp. 123-130. Jensen, J.c. (1957). 'The nature of legal argument. Oxford: Blackwell. Jones, S.B. (1976). 'Justification in judicial opinions: A case study'. Journal of the American Forensic Association, Vol. 12, pp. 121-129. Jonsen, A.R., S. Toulmin (1988). 'The abuse of casuistry. Berkeley etc.: University of California Press. Die juristische Argumentation (1972). Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Kahane, H. (1978). Logic and philosophy. A modern introduction. (third edition) Belmont: Wadsworth. Kalinowski, G. (1972). La logique des normes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Kamenka, E., A. Erh-Soon Tay (1993). 'The law as reasonable: applying Perelman's dictum to common law and to continental civiIlaw'. In: Haarscher (ed.) , pp. 167-178. Kaptein, H. (1994). 'E contrario arguments in law: From interpretation to implicit premisses'. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, Vol. VI, No. 18, pp. 315-324. Kaptein, H. (1995). 'The redundancy of precedent and analogy'. In: van Eemeren et al., Vol. IV, pp. 122-137. Kelsen, H. (1960). Reine Rechtslehre. (second edition, first edition 1934). Wien. Kilian, W. (1974). Juristische Entscheidung und elektronische Datenverarbeitung. Frankfurt a.M.: Beitrage zur juristischen Informatik 3. Klinger, G. (1989). 'Rhetoric's wide-angle lense: How legal vision can be enhanced with rhetorical glasses'. In: Grondbeck (ed.), pp. 359-363. Kloosterhuis, H. (1994). 'Analysing analogy argumentation in judicial decisions'. In: F.H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.) , Studies in Pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: SicSat, pp. 238-245. Kloosterhuis, H. (1995). 'The study of analogy argumentation in law: four pragma­dialectical starting points'. In: van Eemeren et. al., Vol. IV, pp. 138-145. Kloosterhuis, H. (1996). 'The normative reconstruction of analogy argumentation in judicial decisions: a pragma-dialectical perspective'. In: D.M. Gabbay, H.J. Ohlbach (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning. Berlin: Springer, pp. 375·383. Klug, U. (1951). Juristische Logik. Berlin: Springer. Klug, U. (1982). Juristische Logik (fourth revised edition). Berlin: Springer. Koch, H.J. (1980). 'Das Frankfurter Projekt zur juristischen Argumentation: Zur Rehabilitation desdeduktiven Begriindens juristischer Entscheidungen' . In: Hassemer et al. (eds.), pp. 59-86.

212 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kominar, R.A. (1995). 'Beyond the fmal court of apeal: Getting legal reasoning right in the common law'. In: van Eemeren et al. (eels.), pp. 146-151. Krawietz, W. (1984). 'Juridisch-institutionelle Rationalitat des Rechts versus Rationalitat der Wissenschaften'. Rechtstheorie, Vol. 15, pp. 423-452. Krawietz, W., R. Alexy (eels.) (1983). Metatheorie juristischer Argumentation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Krawietz, W., K. Opalek, A. Peczenik, A. Schramm (eels.) (1979). Argumentation und Hermeneutik in tier Jurisprudenz. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Larenz, K. (1975). Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. Berlin etc.: Springer. Lempereur, A. (eel.) (1991). Legal argument. Argumentation, Vol. 5, No.3. Levi, E.H. (1949). An introduction to legal reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ling, D.A. (1981). 'Policy advocacy in the legal setting: A case analysis'. In: Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (eels.), pp. 196-206. Luebke, S.W. (1995). 'Informal logic issues in practical testing context'. In: van Eemeren et al., Vol. IV, pp. 31-41. Lorenzen, P., O. Schwemmer (1973). Konstruktive Logik, Ethik und Wis­senschaftstheorie. Mannheim etc. MacCormick, N. (1978). Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacCormick, N. (1981). 'The artificial reason and judgement of law'. In: Aarnio, Niiniluoto, Uusitalo (eels.), pp. 105-120. MacCormick, N. (1984). 'Coherence in legal justification'. In: Peczenik et al. (eels.), pp. 235-252. MacCormick, N. (1992). 'Legal deduction, legal predicates and expert systems'. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, Vol. V, No. 14, pp. 181-202. MacCormick, D.N., R.S. Summers (eels.) (1991). Interpreting statutes. A comparative study. Aldershot etc.: Dartmouth. McEvoy, S.T. (1991). 'Issues in Common Law pleading and ancient rhetoric'. Argumentation, Vol. 5, No.3, pp. 245-262. McEvoy, S.T. (1995). 'The construction of issues: Pleading theory and practice, relevance in pragmatics, and the confrontation stage in the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation'. In: Van Eemeren et al., Vol. IV, pp. 52-60. Makau, J.M. (1984). 'The Supreme Court and reasonableness'. Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 70, pp. 379-396. Maneli, M. (1993). Perelman's New Rhetoric as philospby and methodology for the next century. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer. Matlon, R.J. (1988). Communication in the legal process. New York etc.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Matlon, R.J. (ed.) (1994). Legal communication. Argumentation and Advocacy. Vol. 30, No.4. Neumann, U. (1986) .Juristische A rgumentationstheorie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Neumann, U., J. Rahlf, E. von Savigny (1976). Juristische Dogmatik und Wis· senschaftstheorie. Munchen: Beck.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 213

Newell, S.E., R.D. Rieke (1986). 'A practical reasoning approach to legal doctrine.' journal of the American Foremic Association, Vol. 22, No.4, pp. 212-222. Panetta, E., M. Hasian Jr. (1995). 'Sex, reason and economics: The judicial discourse of Richard A. Posner'. In: Van Eemeren et al., Vol. IV, pp. 111-121. Parker, R.A. (1987). 'Assessing judicial opinions: Ronald Dworkin's critical method'. In: Wenzel (ed.), pp. 325-334. Pavcnik, M. (1991). 'Interpretation as (re)productive act: interpretation of general legal acts in the process of their normative concretization'. In: van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 765-767. Peczenik, A. (1978). Rechtstheorie, Vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 241-244. Review of A. Aarnio, Legal point of view, 1979. Peczenik, A. (1979). 'Non-equivalent transformations and the law'. In: Peczenik, Uusitalo (eds.), pp. 47-61. Peczenik, A. (1981). 'On the nature and function of the Grundnorm'. In: Aarnio, Niiniluoto, Uusitalo (eds.), pp. 279-298. Peczenik, A. (1983). The basis of legal justification. Lund. Peczenik, A. (1984a). 'Creativity and transformations in legal reasoning'. In: Krawietz et al. (eds.), pp. 277-298. Peczenik, A. (1984b). 'Legal data. An essay about the ontology of law'. In: Peczenik et al. (eds.), pp. 97-120. Peczenik, A. (1984c). 'Legal rationality and its limits'. Rechtstheorie, Vol. 15, pp. 415-422. Peczenik, A. (1985a). 'Moral and ontological justification of legal reasoning'. Law and Philosophy, Vol 4, pp. 289-309. Peczenik, A. (1985b). 'On the rational and moral basis of legal justification'. Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, Vol. 71, pp. 263-267. Peczenik, A. (1988). 'Legal reasoning as a special case of moral reasoning'. Ratio Iuris. Peczenik, A. (1989).On law and reason. Dordrecht etc.: Reidel. (translation of 'Ratten oeh fornuttet', 1986). Peczenik, A. (1992a). 'Legal collision norms and moral considerations'. In: Brouwer et. al. (eds.), pp. 177-200 Peczenik, A. (1992b). 'Weighing values'. International journal for the Semiotics of Law, Vol. V, pp. 137-152. Peczenik, A. (ed.) (1986). Meaning, interpretation and the law. Tampere: Tieto. Peczenik, A., G. Bergholz (1991). 'Statutory interpretation in Sweden'. In: MacCormick and Summers (eds.), pp. 311-358. Peczenik, A., L. Lindahl, B. van Roermund (eds.) (1984). Theory of legal science. Proceedings of the conference on legal theory and philosophy of science, Lund, Sweden, December 11-14, 1983. Dordrecht etc.: Reidel. Peczenik, A., J. Uusitalo (eds.) (1979). Reasoning on legal reasoning. Vammala: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy. Peczenik, A., J. Wroblewski (1985). 'Fuzziness and transformation. Towards explaining legal reasoning'. Theoria. Perelman, Ch. (1963). The idea of justice and the problem of argument. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul. Perelman, Ch. (1967). justice. New York: Random House.

214 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Perelman, Ch. (1976). Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhitorique. Paris: Dalloz. Perelman, Ch. (1980).Justice, law and argument. Essays on moral and legal reasoning. Dordrecht etc.: Reidel. Perelman, Ch., L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). La nouvelle rhitorique. Traiti de I'argumentation. Brussels: l'Universite de Bruxelles. Perelman, Ch., L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumen­tation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (English translation of La nouvelle rhitorique, 1958). Plug, J. (1994). 'Reconstructing complex argumentation in judicial decisions' . In: F.H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics, Amsterdam: SicSat, pp. 246-254. Plug, J. (1995). 'The rational reconstruction of additional considerations in judicial decisions'. In: van Eemeren et al., Vol. IV, pp. 61-72. Plug, H.J. (1996). 'Complex argumentation in judicial decisions. Analysing conflicting arguments'. In: D.M. Gabbay, H.J. Ohlbach (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning. Berlin: Springer, p. 464-479. Plumer, G. (1995). 'Testing for assumption recognition'. In: Van Eemeren et al., Vol. IV, pp. 152-160. Popper, K.R. (1970). 'Normal science and its dangers'. In: I. Lakathos, A. Musgrave (eds.) , Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 51-58. Posner, R.A. (1988). Law and Literature: A misunderstood relation. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. Posner, R.A. (1990). The problems of jurisprudence. University of Chigago, Chicago Illinois. Posner, R.A. (1992). Sex and reason. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press. Prakken, H. (1993). Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Dissertation Amsterdam. Amsterdam. Prott, L.V. (1991). 'Argumentation in international law'. Argumentation, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 299-310. Rasmussen, D.M. (1990). Reading Habermas. Oxford: Blackwell. Raudenbusch Olmsted, W. (1991). 'The uses of rhetoric: indeterminacy in legal reasoning, practical thinking and the interpretation of literary figures'. Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 1-24. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory ofjustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raz, J. (1970). The concept of a legal system. An introduction to the theory of legal system. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: A n analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Rescher, N. (1964). Introduction to logic. New York: St. Martin Press. Rieke, R.D. (1981). 'Investigating legal argument as a field' . In: Ziegelmueller, Rhodes (eds.), pp. 152-159. Rieke, R.D. (1986). 'The evolution of judicial justification: Perelman's concept of the rational and the reasonable'. In: Golden and Pilotta (eds.), pp. 227-244. Rieke, R.D. (1991). 'The judicial dialogue'. In: Argumentation, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 39-56.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 215

Rieke, R.D. (1982). 'Argumentation in the legal process'. In: J.R. Cox and C.A. Willard (eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research. Carbondale etc.: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 363-376. Rieke, R.D. (1991). 'The judicial dialogue'. Argumentation, Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 39-56. Rieke, R.D., R.K. Stutman (1990). Communication in legal ddvocacy. Columbia S.C.: University of South Carolina Press. Riley, P., T.A. Hollihan, K.D. Freadhoff (1987}. 'Argument in the law: the special case of the small claims court'. In: van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 142-151. Rodig, J. (1971). 'Kritik des normlogischen Schliessens'. Theory and Decision, 2, pp. 79-93. Rodig, J. (1972). 'Uber die Notwendigkeit einer besonderen Logik der Normen'. In: H. Albert, N. Luhmann, W. Maihofer, O. Weinberger (eds.), Rechtstheorie als Grundlagenwissenscha/t der Rechtswissenscha/t. J ahrbuch rur Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie. Dusseldorf: Bertelsmann, pp. 163-185. Rodig, J. (1976). 'Logik und Rechtswissenschaft'. In: D. Grimm (ed.), Rechtswis­senscha/t und Nachbarwissenscha/ten Volume 2. Munchen: C. Beck, pp. 53-79. Rohrer, D.M. (1981). 'Jurisprudential origins and applications of presumption and burden of proof'. In: Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 159-179. Rottleuthner, H. (1970). 'Zur Soziologie richterlichen Handelns'. Kritische Justiz , pp. 283-306. Rottleuthner (1973). Rechtswissenscha/tals Sozialwissenscha/t. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer. Riissmann, H. (1979). Rechtstheorie, pp. 110-120. Review of R. Alexy, Theone der juristischen Argumentation, 1978. Russow, L.M., M. Curd (1988). Principles of reasoning. New York: St. Martin's Press. Salter, K.W. (1981). 'The functions of legal argumentation in pre-trial advocacy'. In: Ziegelmueller & Rhodes (eds.), pp. 268-279. Sankadu, E. (1993). 'L'influence de Ch. Perelman sur la pensee juridique au japon'. In: Haarscher (ed.), pp. 69-76. Savigny, E. von {1971}. 'Zur rolle der deduktiv-axiomatischen Methode in der Rechtswissenschaft'. In: G. J ahr & W. Maihofer (Hrsg.) Rechtstheorie. Frankfurt a.M. pp. 315-151. Savigny, E. von (1973). 'Topik und Axiomatik: eind verfehlte Alternative'. In: A rchiv fur Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie, pp. 249999-254_ Scallen, E.A. (1995). 'American legal argumentation: The Law and Literature movement'. Argumentation, Vol. 9, No.5, pp. 705-717. Schreiner, H. (1976). 'Zur rechtslogischen Formalisierungen von Normen'. Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, Band 62, pp. 365-380. Schuetz, J. (1981). 'The genesis of argumentative forms and fields'. In: Ziegelmueller and Rhodes (eds.), pp. 279-295. Schuetz, J. (1986). 'Overlays of argument in legislative process'. Journal of the American Forensic Association, Vol. 22, No.4, pp. 223-234. Schuetz, J. (1991). 'Perelman's rule of justice in Mexican appellate courtS'. In: van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 804-812. Seibert, T.M. (1980). 'Juristische Topik: Ein Beispiel rur die argumentative Wechselbeziehung zwischen Situation und Fall, Regel und Ausnahme'. Zeitschri/t fur Literaturwissenscha/t und Linguistik, 10. W. Klein (ed.), Gottingen, pp. 169-177.

216 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Singer, M.G. (1961). Generalization in ehtics. New York: Russel & Russel. Snedaker, K. (1987). 'The content and structure of appellate argument: rhetorical analysis of brief writing strategies in the Sam Sheppard appeal'. In: Wenzel (ed.), pp. 315-324. Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (1992). A nalysingcomplexargumentation. The reconstruction 0/ multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat. Sobota, K. (1991). 'System and flexibility in law'. Argumentation, Vol. 5, No.3, pp. 275-282. Soeteman,A. (1989). Logic in law. Remarks on logic and rationality in normative reasoning, especialJy in law. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer. Soeteman, A., E.A. Huppes-Cluysenaer, L.K. van Zaltbommel (1990). T aalbeheersing wor juristen. (Speech communication for lawyers) Groningen: Wolters-Noordboff. Stone, J. (1964). Legal system and lawyers' reasonings. London: Stevens. Struck, G. (1977). Zur Theorie juristischer Argumentation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Stutman, R. (1987). 'Objection and recall of claims in legal discourse'. In: Wenzel (ed.), pp. 309-315. Summers, R.S. (1983). 'Comments on the "Foundation of legal reasoning'''. In: Krawietz and Alexy (eds.), pp. 145-158. Tammelo, I. (1969). Outlines 0/ modern legal logic. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Tammelo, I. (1978). Modem logic in the service 0/ law. Wien etc.: Springer. Tammelo, I., G. Moens, P. Brouwer (1981). 'De tegenformulemethode en haar rechtslogischetoepassingen' . Nederlands Tijdschriftwor RechtsfilosofieenRechtstheorie, Vol. 10, pp. 55-65. Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The useso/argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, A. Janik (1984). An introduction to reasoning. (second edition, first edition 1978) New York: Macmillan. Twigg, R. (1989). 'Narrative justice. An analysis of selected Supreme Coun decisions'. In: Gronbeck (ed.), pp. 86-93. Twining, W., D. Miers (1994). How to do things with rules. (third edition, first edition 1991) London etc.: Butterwonhs. Viehweg, Th. (1954). Topik undJurisprudenz. (fifth revised edition 1974) Munchen: Beck. Wagenaar, W.A., P.]. van Koppen, H.F.M. Crombag (1993). Anchored narratives. The psychology 0/ criminal evidence. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Wasserstrom, R.A. (1961). The judicial decision. Toward a theory 0/ legal justification. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Walker, G.B., S.E. Daniels (1995). 'Argument and alternative dispute resolution systems'. Argumentation, Vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 689-692. Was by, S.L., A. D'Amato, R. Metrailer (1976). 'The functions of oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Coun'. The Quarterly Journal o/Speech, Vol. 62, pp. 410-424. Weinberger, O. (1970). Rechtslogik. Versuch einer Anwendung modemer Logik au/ das juristiche Denken. Wien etc.: Springer. Weinberger, O. (1983). 'Logiscbe Analyse als Basis der juristiscben Argumentation'. In: Krawietz, Alexy (eds.), pp. pp. 159-232.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 217

Wenzel, J. (1987). Argument and critical practices. Proceedings of the fifth summer conference on argumentation. Annandale VA: Speech Communication Association. White, J.B. (1984). When words lose their meaning. Chicago: Unviersity of Chicago Press. White, J.B. (1989). 'What can a lawyer learn from literature?', Harvard Law Review, 102, 8, pp. 204-2047. White, J.B. (1990). Justice as translocation. An essay in cultural and legal criticism. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford. Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On certainty. Oxford. Wr6blewski, J. (1974). 'Legal syllogism and rationality of judicial decision'. Rechtstheorie, Band 14, Nr. 5, pp. 33-46. Wroblewski, J. (1979a) 'Verification and justification in the legal sciences'. In: Krawietz et al. (eds.), pp. 195-213. Wr6blewski, J. (1979b). Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, Vol. 65, No.2, p. 281. Wr6blewski, J. (1992). The judicial application aflaw. (Edited by Z. Bankowski and N. MacCormick). Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer. Yoshino, H. (1978b). 'Uber die Notwendigkeit einer besonderen Normenlogik als Methode der juristischen Logik'. In: U. Klug, Th. Ramm, F. Rittner, B. Schmiedel (eds.), Gesetzgebungstheorie,furutische Logik, Zivil· und Prozessrecht. Gedacgtnisschrift fUr Jiirgen Rodig. Berlin etc.: Springer, pp. 140-161. Yoshino, H. (1981). 'Die logische Struktur der Argumentation bei der juristischen Entscheidung'. In: Aarnio, Niiniluoto, Uusitalo (eds.), pp. 235-255. Zarefsky, D., M.O. Sillars, J. Rhodes (eds.) (1983). Argument in transition. Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation. Annandale VA: Speech Communication Association. Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes (eds.) (1981). Dimensions of argument. Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation. Annandale VA: Speech Communication Association.

AUTHOR INDEX

Aamio 3, 6, 7, 14, 20, 22, 23, 34, 49, 93, 100-102, 116, 119-139, 145, 147, 154, 157,159,193-198, 202, 205, 212, 213, 217

Alexy 3, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20-23, 28,31-36, 40,48, 50, 62, 65-68, 70, 71, 90, 91-95, 98-107, 11~112, 114-119, 124, 125, 127-130, 133, 134, 136, 137, 139, 147, 150, 156, 160, 161, 167, 180,182,192-198,202,203,205, 206, 212, 215, 216

Anderson 181,202, 206 Angeles 206 Atienza 206 Atiyah 8,206

Baier 92,97 Ballweg 18, 206 Benoit 24, 206 Bickenbach 206 Buchanan 206 Bund 206 Burton 24, 206

Canaris 206 Carter 10, 85, 206 Christie 56, 206 Clemens 206 Cohen 121, 206 Cooper 24, 207 Copi 24, 27, 206 Crombag 216 Curd 25,215

D'Amato 216 Dellapenna 206 Dickens 207 Dicks 18, 207 Dunbar 24, 207 Dworkin 7, 157, 207, 213

Ehrlich 35, 207 Engisch 207 Enos 207 Erh-Soon Tay 56,211 Esser 18, 207

Farrell 206 Feteris 3, 14, 20, 23, 171, 172, 174,

179-181,184,185,202,203,207,208, 211

Fiedler 30, 208 France 9, 24, 206, 211 Freadhoff 24, 210, 215 Fuller 209

Gamut 28, 209 Golden 56,209, 214 Golding 24, 209 Gottlieb 13, 209 Grootendorst 4, 163-165, 168, 169, 175,

180, 187, 207, 211, 214 Gunther 21, 22, 209

Haack 28, 209 Haarscher 56, 206, 209, 211, 215 Habermas 3, 20, 21, 62-72, 92, 94, 95, 97,

127, 128, 133, 191, 192, 198, 203, 209, 214

Haft 25,209 Hagan 209 Hage 16,31,209,210 Hample 18, 210 Hare 28, 66, 92, 94, 97, 210 Hart 7, 10, 35, 73, 145, 195, 210 Hassemer 14, 205, 210, 211 Henket 17, 20, 21, 23-25, 44, 210 Herbeck 19,210 Herberger 30,210 Hohmann 18,22,210 Hollihan 22, 24, 210, 215 Hom 18,210 Horovitz 14, 40, 210

218

AUTHOR INDEX 219

nie 24,211

Jackson 34, 164, 207, 211 Janas 19, 211 Janik 17,25,40, 42-44, 190, 216 Jansen 20, 23, 184,202, 211 Jensen 13, 211 Jones 211 Jonsen 44, 211

Kahane 27, 211 Kalinowski 14, 16, 31, 211 Kamenka 56, 211 Kaptein 23, 211 Kaufmann 210 Kelsen 144, 211 Kilian 34, 211 Klinger 19, 211 Kloosterhuis 20, 23, 182, 183, 202,

207, 208, 211 Klug 3, 15, 23, 30, 34, 35, 112, 211,

217 Koch 16, 22, 28, 31, 33, 36, 211 Kominar 24, 212 Krawietz 14, 205, 212, 213, 216,

217

Larenz 212 Leenes 31,209 Lempereur 14, 19, 212 Levi 13,212 Ling 212 Lodder 31, 209, 210 Lorenzen 94, 97, 212 Luebke 25, 212

MacCormick 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 20,22,23,30,34,35,73,74,76, 77, 79, 80, 81-91, 103, 113, 124, 145,159, 167, 172, 193-195, 197, 205, 212, 213, 217

Makau 17, 19, 23, 56, 58, 59, 61, 212

Maneli 17, 56, 212 Matlon 14,44, 212 McEvoy 18, 19,212

Metrailer 216 Moens 216 Montesquieu 5

Neumann 24, 28, 34, 35, 210, 212 Newell 44, 45, 206, 213 Niiniluoto 205, 212, 213, 217

Olbrechts-Tyteca 48-51,214 Opalek 212

Panetta 19, 213 Parker 213 Pavcnik 213 Peczenik 3, 4, 6, 20, 22, 23, 45, 93,

100-102,116,119,121,139-151,154, 155, 156-162, 182, 193-198,202,205, 206, 212, 213

Perelman 3, 17,34-37,48-53, 55, 56, 58-61, 93,95, 119, 127, 129, 131-133, 190, 191, 202, 205, 209, 211-215

Pilotta 56, 209, 214 Plug 20, 23, 175, 179, 207, 208, 214 Plumer 25, 214 Pontier 208 Popper 137, 214 Posner 19, 211, 213, 214 Prakken 16, 31, 36, 214 Prott 19,22,214

Rahlf 24, 212 Rasmussen 62,214 Rawls 97, 214 Raz 146,214 Reichenbach 10, 214 Rescher 32, 214 Rieke 14, 17, 18,22, 25,40,42-45, 56, 190,

206, 213-216 Riley 24, 210, 215 R6dig 3, 16, 28, 30, 31, 34, 215, 217 Rohrer 215 Rottleuthner 70, 215 Riissmann 97,215 Russow 25, 215

Salter 215

220 AUTHOR INDEX

Savigny, E. von 215 Scallen 19,215 Schramm 212 Schreckenberger 18 Schreiner 31,215 Schuetz 14, 17, 22, 23, 56, 57, 61,

208,215 Schwartz 207 Schwemmer 94,97,212 Seibert 18, 206, 215 Simon 30,210 Singer 66, 216 Snedaker 17, 23, 45-47, 216 Snoeck Henkemans 42,207,216 Sobota 19,216 Soeteman 3, 16,23,25,31,34, 36,

37,206,216 Stone 13, 36, 57, 216 Struck 14, 18, 35, 216 Stutman 45, 215, 216 Summers 1, 6, 8-10, 22, 23, 167,

172,193,205,206,212,213,216

Tammelo 3, 16,30,31, 34, 216 T arello 54, 60 Terre 56 Toulmin 3, 17, 25, 34, 37, 40-48,

53, 60, 66, 92, 143, 190, 211, 216

Twigg 19,216 Twining 7,9,25, 181, 202, 206, 216

Viehweg 17, 18,206, 216

Wagenaar 11, 181, 202, 216 Wasby 216 Wasserstrom 13,216 Weinberger 3, 16, 31, 34, 102, 117, 137,

215,216 Wenzel 207,213, 216, 217 White 19,74, 75, 85,90,217 Wittgenstein 3,92,119,131, 132, 156,205,

217 Wr6blewski 20, 21, 34, 35, 103, 125,

134-136, 195, 213, 217

Yoshino 16,30,31,35,217

Zarefsky 206, 217 Ziegelmueller 206,207,212,214,215,217

SUBJECT INDEX

A

a contrario argument (see also ar­gumentum a contrario) 9, 23-24, 187 analogical argument (see also analogical reasoning, argument from analogy, and argumentum a simi/,) 54 analogical reasoning (see also anlogical argument, argument from analogy and argumentum a simil,) 25, 112, 206 analytic overview 168, 169, 183, 184 antagonist 42, 164, 168, 172, 176, 208 - institutional antagonist 172 argument (see also argumentation) - apagogical argument (see also ar­

gumentum ad absurdum, reductio ad absurdum) 54, 55

- argument from analogy (see also analogical argument, analogical reasoning, and argumentum a simil,) 8

- argument from coherence 73-89 - argument from consistency 73-89 - comparative argument 110 - consequentialist argument 82-84, 86,

113,193 - genetic argument 108,109, 117 - historical argument 54, 55, 110 - linguistic argument 9 - psychological argument 54, 55 - semantic argument 108, 117 - single argument 175, 176, 193, 198-

199 - systematic argument 54, 109, 177 - teleological argument 54, 55, 110 - teleological/evaluative argument 9 argumentation (see also argument) - complex argumentation 90,175-179,

218 - multiple argumentation 176, 179 - pragmatic argumentation 51 - single argumentation 176, 179

221

- subordinate argumentation 175-176 - argumentation process 21, 22, 24,

38, 190 argumentation scheme 60, 108, 124, 165, 168, 178-188, 196, 202 - argumentation by association 50 - argumentation based on the struc-

ture of reality 51 - argumentation by dissociation 50, 51 - argumentation that establishes the

structure of reality 51 - quasi-logical argumentation 51 argumentation stage 165, 172-173 argumentation structure 90, 168, 176, 178, 179, 198 argumentation theory ii, v, vi, 2, 6, 13, 14, 19,40,48,49, 52, 56, 59, 60, 132, 163, 165, 189, 192, 196,203-211, 216 argumentum a coherentia 54, 55 argumentum a completudine 54 argumentum a contrario 8, 54, 107, 112, 117, 151-152, 191, 196 argumentum a/ortiori 22, 54,107,112, 117, lSI, 196 argumentum a simili (see also anal­ogical argument, argument from analo­gy, and analogical reasoning) 54 argumentum ab exemplo 54, 55 argumentum ad absurdum (see also apagogical argument and reductio ad absurdum) 22, 113, 114 argumentum ad consequentiam 22 argumentum ad hominem 22, 169 audi et altera partem 69 audience 3, 14, 16-18, 28, 33, 48-53,56, 58-61,119,131-134,136,157,172,190-192, 197, 204, 207 - composite audience 17, 58-60 - concrete audience 132, 133 - ideal audience 132-134, 136 - particular audience 49-52, 60, 61,

132-133

222 SUBJECT INDEX

- particular concrete audience 132-133 particular ideal audience 133-1367

- universal audience 49-52, 56, 60-61, 133, 191,207

- universal concrete audience 132-133 - universal ideal audience 133

B

backing (in the Toulmin-model) 17, 41,43,44 basic rules 93-94, 184 burden of proof 59, 65, 68, 69, 95, 107, 119, 128-130, 136-138, 186, 192, 196, 217

c

civil process Ill, 172, 174, 208 claim (in the T oulmin-model) 40-46 clear case 46, 74 coherence (see also argument from coherence, argumentum a coherentia) 20, 22, 73-74, 83-88, 90, 100-101, 124, 129, 134, 154-156, 193, 196, 206, 212, 213 collision of rules/principles 149-152 collision norm 156 communicative action 62-63, 68, 210 concluding stage 165, 172-173 confrontation stage 165, 168, 173, 214 consensus 3, 20, 49, 52, 53, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, ll, 72, 92, 97, 101, 119, 131-134, 136, 151, 156 - rational consensus 20, 49, 68, 97,

133, 156 - well-founded consensus 64 consistency (see also argument from consistency) 8, 20, 57, 59, 65, 73, 74, 87,88,90,100,124,127,134,136,156, 191, 193, 196 construction norm 150 context of discovery 5, 10, 107 context of justification 5, 10, 107 conventional validity 167 creation of a new norm 151

critical genesis 97 critical tool 38, 163, 187-188, 201

D

deductive validity (see also formal validity, logical validity) dialectification 167 dialogical approach (of legal argumen­tation) i, 19,20,25, 197 difference of opinion 114, 128, 150, 164, 166, 170-175, 193 - linguistic difference of opinion 128 discourse (see also discussion) - general practical discourse 92-93, 99-

116 - practical discourse 92-116 discussion (see also discourse)

critical discussion 4, 21, 52,163-174, 184, 187, 189, 198, 203, 218

- discourse-theoretical discussion 97-99 - linguistic-analytical discussion 93, 97 - practical discussion 63, 66-68, 70, 72,

92-116, 125, 127, 203 rational discussion 19,20,62,67-69, ll, 72, 115-116, 127, 136-138, 154, 157, 161, 166, 180-210

- theoretical discussion 63, 96 discussion rule 168 dispute, see difference of opinion dogmatics (see also legal dogmatics) 5, 8,11, 111-130, 173, 195,205

E

efficiency 20, 100-101, 119, 128, 136, 184, 196 elimination 150, 151, 160-161 empirical component 24, 170, 204 externalization 166

F

fallacy 168 field of argument 22

SUBJECT INDEX 223

field-dependent 3, 17, 40, 43, 46, 53, 60, 189, 190 field-invariant 40, 43, 46 form of life (see also life world) 131-136, 137, 157, 161 formal validity (see also logical vali­dity) 3, 15, 26, 28, 37, 38, 40, 48, 89, 183 functionalization 167

G

general legal principle (see also legal principle) 53, 87, 153 generalizability (see also univer­salizability) 15, 20, 100-101, 128, 129, 134, 196 grounds (in the Toulmin-model) 41-46 Grundnorm 144-145, 157, 160, 197, 215

H

hard case 7, 47, 141, 159, 177, 199 heuristic tool 39, 69, 164, 187, 178, 198, 201

I

ideal model 20, 21, 165, 169-170, 198, 204 ideal speech situation 63-72, 93-97, 132, 191 identification procedure 182 inconsistency 83 inference rule 45, 143-145, 159 interpretation

genetic interpretation 8 grammatical interpretation (see also semantic interpretation) 188 historical interpretation 8 interpretation method 8-9, 23, 60, 130, 171, 180, 190-203 interpretation norm 149

- interpretation standpoint 120-125, 131-133

- interpretation statement 120 - semantic interpretation (see also

grammatical interpretation) 8 - systematic interpretation 8, 124, 188 - teleological interpretation 8, 177,

188, 196

J

jump 140-145, 155-160 jurisprudence 2, 8, 13, 14, 19, 108,211, 216 justification - deductive justification 73-90, 193 - deep justification iv, 140, 141, 154-

161 - empirical justification 101 - external justification 20, 90, 103-116,

125-127, 135-136, 193-195 - internal justification 20, 90, 103-108,

117-118, 125-136, 193-195 - legal justification 1,4, 15,38,77,88,

92,93, 125, 139, 140, 144, 154, 157, 158, 160-162, 189-194, 203-205,214-219

- second-order justification 73,78, 82, 83, 88-90, 103, 193

- technical justification 101 - universal-pragmatic justification 101 justification rule 51, 94, 98

L

legal certainty 121-122, 133, 144, 173, 184 legal dogmatics (see also dogmatics) 5, 11, 111-130, 173, 195, 205 legal ideology 140, 155, 156, 160, 197 legal philosophy 11-14,48,56,70,146, 187,205 legal principle (see also general legal principle) 53, 83, 85-88, 153 legal science 11, 68, 115, 118, 130, 189, 204,215 legal security 103, 174 legal source 77, 82, 129, 148, 149, 195

224 SUBJECT INDEX

legal syllogism (see also syllogism) 29, 34, 103, 135, 220 legal theory 2, 3, 6, 7, 10-14, 20, 25, 52, 70, 73, 88, 103, 116, 121, 139, 160, 176, 180, 188, 194,204, 206, 207, 215, 216 lexposteriorderogatlegipriori 152, 153, 182 lex specialis derogat legi generali 152, 153, 182 loci 50, 53, 56, 57, 60 logic - deontic logic 15, 16,28,30,31,35 - dialogical logic 31 - predicate logic 16, 28-31, 35, 194,

196 - propositional logic 16,23,28-31,33,

35, 194 - reason based logic 16, 210 - syllogistic logic 28, 34, 35, 194, 195 logical analysis i, 26, 32,33,38,89,93, 183, 190,211 logical approach (of legal argumen­tation) 3, 15, 16, 23, 25-27, 36-39, 189, 190 logical reconstruction 33, 194 logical validity (see also formal vali­dity) 15, 17,26-28, 36-40,77, 105, 136, 182-195

M

major premise 29 minor premise 28, 29 missing premise 33, 75, 180, 201 modus ponens 27, 29, 74-76

N

ne bis in idem 211 normative statement 66, 92-97,103-116

o

opening stage 165, 173

p

philosophical component 21,170,203 practical component 21,24, 170, 172, 206 pragma-dialectical approach 4,20,162-183 precedent 8, 9, 17,25,57-59, 80, 87-88, 112, 153, 213 presumption 57, 106, 180, 217 principle of charity 32 principle of universalizability 15, 67, 71, 94-97, 105, 112-114, 151 proposition 41, 76, 77, 87, 111, 129, 130, 143 protagonist 164, 169, 172

Q

qualifier (in the Toulmin-model) 42, 43

R

rational reconstruction 10-12, 22, 90, 167, 180, 182, 184, 187, 188, 193, 198, 203, 204, 216 rationality - communicative rationality ii, 3,

62-64, 69, 127, 191-193 - D(iscursive)-rationality 127-128, 134-

136, 154-156 - L(ogical)-rationality 127-128, 136,

154 - practical rationality 100 - procedural rationality 67, 69, 156 rationality rules 70, 95, 99, 101, 128 reasonable discussion attitude 166, 185-187 rebuttal (in the Toulmin-model) 41,43 reconstruction component 22, 170, 204 reductio ad absurdum (see also apa­gogical argument) 55, 114, 118 reduction ISO-lSI, 160-161 relevance 78-81, 83,134, 153,184, 192, 196,214

SUBJECT INDEX 225

research programme 4, 22, 197, 203, 204 resolution of a difference of opinion 4, 20, 21, 58, 59, 68, 80, 88, 163-174, 184-187, 198, 219 rhetoric 3,17-19,48,50,52,56,59-61, 163, 190, 209-217 rhetorical analysis 23, 164, 218 rhetorical approach (of legal argumen­tation) 16, 17, 19, 56, 192 rules for allocating the burden of proof 95 rules for rational discussion 19, 138, 184, 196, 197, 208

s

semantic rule 104 sincerity 20, 63, 65, 95, 100-101, 119, 128,135-136, 192, 196 socialization 98, 167 speech act 63, 94 starting point 3, 18, 50, 55, 60,65,122, 129,137,139,165,175,181-183, 195, 198, 202 status theory 18 stock issue 207 strategic action 68, 70 subsumption 141, 147, 150 sufficient defence 86, 88 Supreme Court 17, 19, 24, 44-46, 56, 58, 59, 120, 121, 124, 142, 148, 177, 199,206,207,214,219 syllogism (see also legal syllogism) 28, 29,34, 103, 125-127, 135, 194, 219

T

testability 20, 100-101, 196 testing procedure 181, 195 theoretical component 22, 170, 203, 204 topical approach (of legal argumen­tation) 17, 18 topoi 18, 192 transformation 140-163, 194, 195,215

- category transformation 144-146, 160, 194

- criteria transformation 144-146, 160, 194

- decision transformation 147, 149, 160

- individual norm transformation 147 - source transformation 147, 160, 194,

195 - transformation inside the law 143,

146, 147, 160-161 - transformation into the law 143-147,

160 transformation rule 143-146, 159 transition rules 98, 101

u

universal rule 85, 89, 105-108, 179, 194, 196 universalizability (see also genera­lizability) 15,28,65-67, 69, 71, 81, 94, 95,97,105,112-114,151,156, 191, 194

v

validity (see also formal validity, lo­gical validity) 3, 11, 15, 17, 26-29, 32, 33,36-38,40,48,51,63,65,74,77,89, 90, 102-105, 109, 125, 136, 146-148, 159, 167, 181, 183, 189, 190, 194, 195, 212 - problem validity 167 value hierarchy 56 value judgement 37, 67 verbal indicators 179, 180

w

warrant (in the Toulmin-model) 17, 41-46, 80, 81