International audienceSince Aristotle, reasonable disagreement exists if each opponent accepts the principle of non-contradiction. Legal reasoning needs an additional requirement : the reasonable disagreement is based on the formal rule of justice that is to say that like cases should be treated alike. Because of the formal rule of justice, the existence of a precedent is therefore a strong argument in favor of a thesis. Persistent disagreement remains on the fact that the opposing views are based on arguments of similar strength. The strength of the arguments is then determined ultimately by the criterion of consistency
© 2019, Polish Academy of Sciences - Institute of Philosophy and Sociology. All rights reserved. Dee...
Much work on legal knowledge systems treats legal reasoning as arguments that lead from a descriptio...
International audienceIntuitively, the disagreement is related to subjectivity. The aim of this pape...
International audienceSince Aristotle, reasonable disagreement exists if each opponent accepts the p...
International audienceSince Aristotle, reasonable disagreement exists if each opponent accepts the p...
International audienceLaw as integrity as a dworkinian theory is mainly a theory of legal argumentat...
The present work will investigate in the most important aspects of the logic of the reasonable, in w...
The Aristotelian justification of the principle of non-contradiction (PNC) by the argument of «retor...
. Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting argu...
Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments for propositions-structured ...
De par son positionnement même la Cour de justice a toujours dû convaincre de la légitimité de ses d...
As emphasized by Jeremy Bentham and the analytical school, logical consistency is a requirement for ...
Rawls’s ‘public reason’ is the dominant political conception in contemporary liberal societies. It h...
Some disagreements seem to be persistent: they are, pretty much, immune to persuasive argumentation....
Some disagreements seem to be persistent: they are, pretty much, immune to persuasive argumentation....
© 2019, Polish Academy of Sciences - Institute of Philosophy and Sociology. All rights reserved. Dee...
Much work on legal knowledge systems treats legal reasoning as arguments that lead from a descriptio...
International audienceIntuitively, the disagreement is related to subjectivity. The aim of this pape...
International audienceSince Aristotle, reasonable disagreement exists if each opponent accepts the p...
International audienceSince Aristotle, reasonable disagreement exists if each opponent accepts the p...
International audienceLaw as integrity as a dworkinian theory is mainly a theory of legal argumentat...
The present work will investigate in the most important aspects of the logic of the reasonable, in w...
The Aristotelian justification of the principle of non-contradiction (PNC) by the argument of «retor...
. Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting argu...
Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments for propositions-structured ...
De par son positionnement même la Cour de justice a toujours dû convaincre de la légitimité de ses d...
As emphasized by Jeremy Bentham and the analytical school, logical consistency is a requirement for ...
Rawls’s ‘public reason’ is the dominant political conception in contemporary liberal societies. It h...
Some disagreements seem to be persistent: they are, pretty much, immune to persuasive argumentation....
Some disagreements seem to be persistent: they are, pretty much, immune to persuasive argumentation....
© 2019, Polish Academy of Sciences - Institute of Philosophy and Sociology. All rights reserved. Dee...
Much work on legal knowledge systems treats legal reasoning as arguments that lead from a descriptio...
International audienceIntuitively, the disagreement is related to subjectivity. The aim of this pape...