{"title":"A repugnant possibility","authors":"Diana Giner","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22004.gin","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Commisa v Pemex is one of the rare cases where an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration is enforced. The judges are forced to justify how the notion of public policy becomes a priority over international comity. This paper explores, from a pragma-dialectic approach, what rhetorical strategies are employed to justify this decision. Legal Argumentation Theory ( van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004 ; Feteris, 2005 ; van Eemeren, 2007 ; Feteris & Kloosterhuis, 2009 ) values a combination between rational knowledge and rhetoric; for which interpersonality could be highly involved. On the one hand, metaphor ( Lakoff & Turner, 1989 ; Sopory & Dillard, 2002 ; Mussolf, 2017) supports the legal argumentation; while, on the other hand, hedges, intensifiers, attitudinal markers ( Vande Kopple, 1985 ; Crismore, 1993; Hyland, 1999, 2000a; Dafouz, 2003 ) shape the message to convince the audience that, on this occasion, a previously annulled international arbitral award should be enforced.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22004.gin","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Commisa v Pemex is one of the rare cases where an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration is enforced. The judges are forced to justify how the notion of public policy becomes a priority over international comity. This paper explores, from a pragma-dialectic approach, what rhetorical strategies are employed to justify this decision. Legal Argumentation Theory ( van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004 ; Feteris, 2005 ; van Eemeren, 2007 ; Feteris & Kloosterhuis, 2009 ) values a combination between rational knowledge and rhetoric; for which interpersonality could be highly involved. On the one hand, metaphor ( Lakoff & Turner, 1989 ; Sopory & Dillard, 2002 ; Mussolf, 2017) supports the legal argumentation; while, on the other hand, hedges, intensifiers, attitudinal markers ( Vande Kopple, 1985 ; Crismore, 1993; Hyland, 1999, 2000a; Dafouz, 2003 ) shape the message to convince the audience that, on this occasion, a previously annulled international arbitral award should be enforced.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Argumentation in Context aims to publish high-quality papers about the role of argumentation in the various kinds of argumentative practices that have come into being in social life. These practices include, for instance, political, legal, medical, financial, commercial, academic, educational, problem-solving, and interpersonal communication. In all cases certain aspects of such practices will be analyzed from the perspective of argumentation theory with a view of gaining a better understanding of certain vital characteristics of these practices. This means that the journal has an empirical orientation and concentrates on real-life argumentation but is at the same time out to publish only papers that are informed by relevant insights from argumentation theory.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
