The soundness of judicial argumentation
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
|Date of creation:||2013|
|Publication status:||Published in WP BRP Series: Law / LAW, December 2013, pages 1-12|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Myasnitskaya 20, Moscow 101000|
Web page: http://www.hse.ru/
More information through EDIRC
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.