IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The soundness of judicial argumentation

Listed author(s):
  • Alexander E. Chuvilin


    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Registered author(s):

    One of the main aims for the argumentation theorists around the world is to define standards for the soundness of argumentation. Many authors, such as Chaim Perelman or Steven Toulmin, have emphasized the role that the field of argumentation plays in defining such standards. Judicial argumentation is strongly connected with legal procedure and substantive laws. But can we say that some rules of judicial argumentation are vested in legal rules? Can we derive standards of judicial argumentation from substantive and procedural laws? This paper answers these questions on the basis of Russian and US legislation. The present treatise is aimed at outlining the main aspects of the problem and elaborating directions for future research

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by National Research University Higher School of Economics in its series HSE Working papers with number WP BRP 28/LAW/2013.

    in new window

    Length: 12 pages
    Date of creation: 2013
    Publication status: Published in WP BRP Series: Law / LAW, December 2013, pages 1-12
    Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:28/law/2013
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Myasnitskaya 20, Moscow 101000

    Phone: +7(495)7713232
    Fax: +7(495)6287931
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:28/law/2013. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamil Abdulaev)

    or (Victoria Elkina)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.