Location
Brock University
Document Type
Paper
Start Date
15-5-1997 9:00 AM
End Date
17-5-1997 5:00 PM
Abstract
In this contribution two approaches of legal analogy-argumentation will be discussed: the traditional, monological approach and the dialogical approach. This contribution aims at answering the question in how far these approaches may serve as adequate instruments for rational reconstructions of this analogy-argumentation. We will also indicate along which lines the insights resulting from these approaches may be developed further in order to arrive at a more comprehensive and systematic method for a rational reconstruction of argumentation of this sort. We will make use of the insights gained from the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Jerome Bickenbach, Commentary on Kloosterhuis
Reader's Reactions
Jerome Bickenbach, Commentary on Kloosterhuis (May 1997)
Included in
The Reconstruction of Legal Analogy-Argumentation: Monological and Dialogical Approaches
Brock University
In this contribution two approaches of legal analogy-argumentation will be discussed: the traditional, monological approach and the dialogical approach. This contribution aims at answering the question in how far these approaches may serve as adequate instruments for rational reconstructions of this analogy-argumentation. We will also indicate along which lines the insights resulting from these approaches may be developed further in order to arrive at a more comprehensive and systematic method for a rational reconstruction of argumentation of this sort. We will make use of the insights gained from the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory.
