法律推理中的论证和故事

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.25162/ARSP-2020-0006
T. Ward, Gianluca Andresani
{"title":"法律推理中的论证和故事","authors":"T. Ward, Gianluca Andresani","doi":"10.25162/ARSP-2020-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We argue that legal argumentation, as the subject matter as well as a special subfield of Argumentation Studies (AS), has to be examined by making skilled use of the full panoply of tools such as argumentation and story schemes which are at the forefront of current work in AS. In reviewing the literature, we make explicit our own methodological choices (particularly regarding the place of normative deliberation in practical reasoning) and then illustrate the implications of such an approach through the analysis of a case study in the English law of evidence. We argue that a clear distinction must be drawn between practical argumentation and stories. Because of the institutional separation between legal judgment and fact-finding in common-law jury trials, we argue for the combination of argument and story-based analysis.","PeriodicalId":41477,"journal":{"name":"Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arguments and Stories in Legal Reasoning\",\"authors\":\"T. Ward, Gianluca Andresani\",\"doi\":\"10.25162/ARSP-2020-0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We argue that legal argumentation, as the subject matter as well as a special subfield of Argumentation Studies (AS), has to be examined by making skilled use of the full panoply of tools such as argumentation and story schemes which are at the forefront of current work in AS. In reviewing the literature, we make explicit our own methodological choices (particularly regarding the place of normative deliberation in practical reasoning) and then illustrate the implications of such an approach through the analysis of a case study in the English law of evidence. We argue that a clear distinction must be drawn between practical argumentation and stories. Because of the institutional separation between legal judgment and fact-finding in common-law jury trials, we argue for the combination of argument and story-based analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41477,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25162/ARSP-2020-0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25162/ARSP-2020-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

我们认为,法律论证作为论证研究(as)的主题和一个特殊的子领域,必须通过熟练使用论证和故事方案等工具的全套工具来进行检查,这些工具处于as当前工作的前沿。在回顾文献时,我们明确了我们自己的方法论选择(特别是关于规范审议在实践推理中的地位),然后通过对英国证据法案例研究的分析来说明这种方法的含义。我们认为,必须明确区分实际论证和故事。由于普通法陪审团审判中法律判断与事实发现之间的制度分离,我们主张将论证与基于故事的分析相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Arguments and Stories in Legal Reasoning
We argue that legal argumentation, as the subject matter as well as a special subfield of Argumentation Studies (AS), has to be examined by making skilled use of the full panoply of tools such as argumentation and story schemes which are at the forefront of current work in AS. In reviewing the literature, we make explicit our own methodological choices (particularly regarding the place of normative deliberation in practical reasoning) and then illustrate the implications of such an approach through the analysis of a case study in the English law of evidence. We argue that a clear distinction must be drawn between practical argumentation and stories. Because of the institutional separation between legal judgment and fact-finding in common-law jury trials, we argue for the combination of argument and story-based analysis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Replacing the Persecution Condition for Refugeehood Hanfei: der politische Realismus in der chinesischen Philosophie Gewalt und Legitimation – Grundzüge eines unaufhebbaren Missverhältnisses Mit den Augen eines befangenen Chronisten Why Kelsen’s Basic Norm Does not Include a Transition from Is to Ought
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1