Introduction
The subject of this post is the forms of genetic arguments analyzed by Robert Alexy. These forms are used to argue that a legal norm should be interpreted in a certain way because that would be the will of the legislator.
(more…)-
Forms of external justification using semantic arguments in judicial decisions
Introduction
In this post, I analyze the forms of semantic arguments identified by Robert Alexy. These forms are employed to contend that a legal norm should be interpreted in a certain way based on how language is used.
(more…) -
External justification with regard to facts in judicial decisions
Introduction
The theme of this post is the external justification with regard to facts in judicial decisions from Robert Alexy’s perspective.
(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…) -
Internal and external justification of judicial decisions
Introduction
This post deals with the distinction between internal and external justification of judicial decisions according to Robert Alexy.
(more…) -
Special case thesis
Introduction
The subject of this post is the special case thesis formulated by Robert Alexy. According to this thesis, legal discourse is a special case of general practical discourse.
(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…)