Introduction
In this post, I analyze the argumentative rules for the use of precedents in judicial decisions from Robert Alexy’s point of view.
(more…)-
Rules for the use of arguments provided by the science of law in judicial decisions
Introduction
This post deals with the rules formulated by Robert Alexy for the use of arguments provided by legal studies in judicial decisions.
(more…) -
Argumentative rules with regard to the interpretation of legal norms in judicial decisions
Introduction
This post covers the argumentative rules that regulate the forms of interpretative arguments according to Robert Alexy.
(more…) -
Forms of external justification using systematic arguments in the strict sense in judicial decisions
Introduction
The theme of this post is the forms of systematic arguments in the strict sense in judicial decisions in Robert Alexy’s view. These forms concern the logical relationships between legal norms.
(more…) -
Forms and rules of internal justification of judicial decisions
Introduction
This post aims to clarify the forms and rules of internal justification of judicial decisions according to Robert Alexy.
(more…) -
Limits of general practical discourse according to Robert Alexy
Introduction
This post aims to analyze the limits of general practical discourse and why they make legal discourse necessary.
(more…) -
Rules of transition between general practical discourse and other types of discourse in Robert Alexy’s view
Introduction
This post deals with the rules of transition between general practical discourse and other types of discourse. In the general practical discourse, value judgments and norms that oblige, allow or prohibit certain actions to be practiced are discussed. The other types of discourse are necessary when questions arise about facts, language problems, and discourse theory. These rules apply equally to legal discourse because it is a special case of general practical discourse.
(more…) -
Argumentative rules that define the content of norms and value judgments according to Robert Alexy
Introduction
In this post, I examine the argumentative rules that directly define the content of norms and value judgments in general practical discourse. These rules are called justification rules by Robert Alexy (1989, p. 202) and are transcribed and examined in the next section. Since legal discourse is a special case of general practical discourse, the rules of the latter apply to the former as well.
(more…) -
Six forms to justify norms and value judgments from Robert Alexy’s perspective
Introduction
The theme of this post is six forms to justify a norm complied with by an individual in a concrete situation. These forms also serve to justify a value judgment applied by an individual in a concrete situation. The forms establish procedures of justification, but do not define the content of norms and value judgments.
(more…) -
How to rationally distribute the burden of argumentation
In this post, I analyze the rules for allocating the burden of argument. They aim to rationally regulate the situations in which speakers are obliged to provide arguments in general practical discourses. Robert Alexy (1989, p. 196-197) developed them as follows:
(more…)