Methods of judicial argumentation in case of semantic uncertainty of a legal text
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2024.308Abstract
While in non-legal texts linguistic uncertainty either does not hinder normal linguistic practices or can be removed by clarifications, the elimination of uncertainty in legal texts is complicated since peculiarities of legal language precludes its complete exclusion. Accordingly, the task of overcoming legal uncertainty is delegated to the judge and the question arises as to what methods of dealing with the legal text are applicable. The article examines the approaches distinguished in the theory of legal argumentation to assess whether they can offer a methodology which will be able to overcome the policy consequences of the language “open texture” as a characteristic of
uncertainty of the natural language in which legal texts are presented by formalizing the process of choosing one of the possible options of the legal text interpretation in judicial decisions. The author concludes that the methods to deal with an uncertain legal text offered by the topicalrhetorical and dialectical approach are limited to the formulation of requirements for the process of argumentation (which do not guarantee absolute predictability of the decision to be made), as well as criteria to evaluate the justification of the decision retrospectively. In turn, the possibility to critically assess the arguments limits the arbitrariness, forcing the judge to follow standards of acceptability and sufficiency of the reasoning to justify their decision.
Keywords:
legal argumentation theory, legal uncertainty, judicial formalism, judicial realism, language open texture, rational discourse
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Библиография
Алекси, Роберт. 2011. «Дуальная природа права». Право Украины 1: 45–58.
Антонов, Михаил В. 2015. «Неореалистическая концепция М. Тропера и спор о правовых суждениях во французской правовой доктрине». Проблемы методологии и философии права. Ред. Сергей Н. Касаткин, 116–131. Самара: Самар. гуманит. акад.
Белов, Сергей А. 2022a. «Параметры правовой коммуникации: адресаты правовых актов». Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право 13 (4): 841–859. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2022.401
Белов, Сергей А. 2022b. «Роль языка в обеспечении понятности и определенности нормативных правовых актов». Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право 13 (2): 293–308. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2022.201
Берщицкий, Эдуард Е. 2021. Правовая определенность и оценочные категории: краткий очерк на примере составов правонарушений в различных отраслях права. М.: М-Логос.
Блинова, Ольга В., Сергей А. Белов. 2020. «Языковая неоднозначность и неопределенность в русских правовых текстах». Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право 11 (4): 774–812. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2020.401
Должиков, Алексей В., Анита К. Соболева. 2022. «Толкование и аргументация в решениях Конституционного Суда». Конституционный Суд России: осмысление опыта. Под ред. Андрея Н. Медушевского, 302–359. М.: Центр конституционных исследований.
Лисанюк, Елена Н. 2004. «Аргументация в нормативных контекстах: подходы и проблемы». Коммуникация и образование: сб. ст. Под ред. Сергея И. Дудника, 216–233. СПб.: С.-Петерб. филос. об-во.
Соболева, Анита К. 2001. Топическая юриспруденция. М.: Добросвет.
Тимошина, Елена В. 2016. «Судья как новый суверен: волюнтаристская теория толкования Мишеля Тропера». Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов 2: 50–61.
Тимошина, Елена В. 2017. «Методология судебного толкования: генезис и эволюция реалистического подхода». Право и политика 12: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0706.2017.12.25079
Тимошина, Елена В., Наталья С. Васильева, Арсений А. Краевский, Вячеслав Е. Кондуров, Дарья А. Сошникова. 2022. Стратегии судебного толкования и принципы права. СПб.: Изд-во С.-Петерб. ун-та.
Тропер, Мишель. 2006. «Реалистическая теория толкования». Сравнительное конституционное обозрение 1 (54): 136–143.
Фаталиева, Дарья А. 2023. «Теория юридических сдержек: фактические границы правотворческих полномочий судьи с точки зрения неореалистической теории толкования». Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Сер.: Юридические науки 2: 368–382. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2337-2023-27-2-368-382
Харт, Герберт Л. А. 2007. Понятие права. Пер. с англ. СПб.: Изд-во С.-Петерб. ун-та.
Aarnio, Aulis. 2011. Essays on the doctrinal study of law. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bix, Brian. 1993. Law, language and legal determinacy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brunet, Pierre. 2004. “Irrationalisme et anti-formalisme: sur quelques critiques du syllogisme normative”. Droits: Revue française de théorie juridique 39: 197–217.
Brunet, Pierre. 2012. “Le réalisme n’est-il qu’une théorie de l’interprétation?” Réalisme, interprétation, transgression, 397–414. France.
Brunet, Pierre. 2016a. “Analyse réaliste du jugement juridique”. Cahiers Philosophiques 147: 9–25.
Brunet, Pierre. 2016b. “Examen sceptique de la distinction entre motifs juridiques et motifs non-juridiques”. Les motifs non-juridiques des jugements internationaux. Eds Florian Couveinhes Matsumoto, Raphaëlle Nollez-Goldbach, 9–22. Paris: Editions Pedone.
Chiasoni, Pierluigi, Eveline Feteris. 2016. “A Note on Terminology and purpose” A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Vol. 12 (2): Legal philosophy in the twentieth century: The civil law world. Part 4: Legal reasoning. Ed. by Enrico Pattaro, 561–564. Dordrecht: Springer.
Chiasoni, Pierluigi, Eveline Feteris, Hanna Maria Kreuzbauer. 2016. “Taking stock of the past: Rhetoric, topics, hermeneutics”. A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Vol. 12 (2): Legal philosophy in the twentieth century: The civil law world. Part 4: Legal reasoning. Ed. by Enrico Pattaro, 627–646. Dordrecht: Springer.
Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systemic theory of argumentation, the pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Endicott, Timothy. 2001. “Law is necessarily vague”. Legal Theory 4: 379–385.
Feteris, Eveline, Huis Kloosterhuis. 2009. “The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation: Approaches from legal theory and argumentation theory”. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 29: 307–331.
Feteris, Eveline. 2016. “Advancing reason to its further borders”. A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Vol. 12 (2): Legal philosophy in the twentieth century: The civil law world. Part 4: Legal reasoning. Ed. by Enrico Pattaro, 665–708. Dordrecht: Springer.
Johnson, Ralph H. 2009. “Revisiting the logical/dialectical/rhetorical triumvirate”. OSSA Conference Archive 8: 1–13.
Matczak, Marcin. 2018. “Why judicial formalism is incompatible with the rule of law”. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 1: 61–85. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2831477
Millard, Éric. 2012. “Les contraintes, entre ressources stratégiques et théorie de la régularité”. Droits 1 (55): 23–40.
Mochales, Raquel, Aagje Ieven. 2009. “Creating an argumentation corpus: Do theories apply to real arguments? A case study on the legal argumentation of the ECHR”. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL ‘09): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/1568234.1568238
Perelman, Chaim. 1976. Logique Juridique. Nouvelle Rhetorique. Paris: Dalloz.
Regh, William. 2003. “Habermas, argumentation theory, and science studies: Toward interdisciplinary cooperation”. Informal Logic 23 (2): 161–182.
Stelmach, Jerzy, Brozek Bartosz. 2006. Methods of legal reasoning. Dordrecht: Springer.
References
Aarnio, Aulis. 2011. Essays on the doctrinal study of law. Dordrecht, Springer.
Alexy, Robert. 2011. “Dual nature of law”. Pravo Ukrainy. 1: 45–58. (In Russian)
Antonov, Mikhail V. 2015. “M. Troper’s neorealist concept and the dispute about legal judgements in French legal doctrine”. Problemy metodologii i filosofii prava. Ed. by S. N. Kasatkin, 116–131. Samara, Samarskaia gumanitarnaia akademiia Publ. (In Russian)
Belov, Sergei A. 2022a. “Characteristic of legal communication: Addressees of legal acts”. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law 13 (4): 841–859. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2022.401 (In Russian)
Belov, Sergey А. 2022b. “The role of language in providing intelligibility and certainty of normative legal acts”. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law 13 (2): 293–308. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2022.201 (In Russian)
Bershchitsky, Eduard, E. 2021. Legal certainty and evaluative categories: A brief essay on the example of compounds of offences in various branches of law. Moscow, M-Logos Publ. (In Russian)
Bix, Brian. 1993. Law, language and legal determinacy. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Blinova, Ol’ga V., Sergei A. Belov. 2020. “Linguistic ambiguity and vagueness in Russian legal texts”. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law 11 (4): 774–812. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2020.401 (In Russian)
Brunet, Pierre. 2004. “Irrationalisme et anti-formalisme: sur quelques critiques du syllogisme normative”. Droits: Revue française de théorie juridique 39: 197–217.
Brunet, Pierre. 2012. “Le réalisme n’est-il qu’une théorie de l’interprétation?” Réalisme, interprétation, transgression, 397–414. France.
Brunet, Pierre. 2016a. Analyse réaliste du jugement juridique. Cahiers Philosophiques 147: 9–25.
Brunet, Pierre. 2016b. “Examen sceptique de la distinction entre motifs juridiques et motifs non-juridiques”. Les motifs non-juridiques des jugements internationaux. Eds Florian Couveinhes Matsumoto, Raphaëlle Nollez-Goldbach, 9–22. Paris, Editions Pedone.
Chiasoni, Pierluigi, Eveline Feteris. 2016. “A note on terminology and purpose” A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Vol. 12 (2): Legal philosophy in the twentieth century: The civil law world. Part 4: Legal reasoning. Ed. by Enrico Pattaro, 561–564. Dordrecht, Springer.
Chiasoni, Pierluigi, Eveline Feteris, Hanna Maria Kreuzbauer. 2016. “Taking stock of the past: Rhetoric, topics, hermeneutics”. A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence. Vol. 12 (2): Legal philosophy in the twentieth century: The civil law world. Part 4: Legal reasoning. Ed. by Enrico Pattaro, 627–646. Dordrecht, Springer.
Dolzhikov, Aleksey V., Anita K. Soboleva. 2022. “Interpretation and argumentation in the decisions of the Constitutional Court”. Konstitutsionnyi Sud Rossii: osmyslenie opyta. Ed. by Andrey N. Medushevskii, 302–359. Moscow, Tsentr konstitutsionnykh issledovanii Publ. (In Russian)
Eemeren, Frans H., Grootendorst, Rob. 2004. A systemic theory of argumentation, the pragma-dialectical approach. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Endicott, Timothy. 2001. “Law is necessarily vague”. Legal Theory. 4: 379–385.
Fatalieva, Daria A. 2023. “The theory of legal restraints: The actual limits of the judge’s lawmaking power from the perspective of the neorealist theory of interpretation”. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Iuridicheskie nauki 2: 368–382. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2337-2023-27-2-368-382
Feteris, Eveline, Huis Kloosterhuis. 2009. “The analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation: Approaches from legal theory and argumentation theory”. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 29: 307–331.
Feteris, Eveline. 2016. “Advancing reason to its further borders”. A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence. Vol. 12 (2): Legal philosophy in the twentieth century: The civil law world. Part 4: Legal reasoning. Ed. by Enrico Pattaro, 665–708. Dordrecht, Springer.
Hart, Herbert L. A. 2007. The concept of law. Rus. ed. St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg University Press. (In Russian)
Johnson, Ralph H. 2009. “Revisiting the logical/dialectical/rhetorical triumvirate”. OSSA Conference Archive 8: 1–13.
Lisanyuk, Elena N. 2004. “Argumentation in normative contexts: Approaches and challenges”. Kommunikatsia i obrazovanie: sbornik statei. Ed. by Sergey I. Dudnik, 216–233. St. Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskoe filosofskoe obshestvo Publ. (In Russian)
Matczak, Marcin. 2018. “Why judicial formalism is incompatible with the rule of law”. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 1: 61–85. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2831477
Millard, Éric. 2012. “Les contraintes, entre ressources stratégiques et théorie de la régularité”. Droits 1 (55): 23–40.
Mochales, Raquel, Aagje Ieven. 2009. “Creating an argumentation corpus: Do theories apply to real arguments? A case study on the legal argumentation of the ECHR”. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL ‘09): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/1568234.1568238
Perelman, Chaim. 1976. Logique Juridique. Nouvelle Rhetorique. Paris, Dalloz.
Regh, William. 2003. “Habermas, argumentation theory, and science studies: Toward interdisciplinary cooperation”. Informal Logic 23 (2): 161–182.
Soboleva, Anita K. 2001. Topical jurisprudence. Moscow, Dobrosvet Publ. (In Russian)
Stelmach, Jerzy, Brozek Bartosz. 2006. Methods of legal reasoning. Dordrecht, Springer.
Timoshina, Elena V. 2016. “Judge as a new sovereign: Voluntaristic interpretation theory of M. Troper”. Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Iuridicheskie nauki 2: 50–61. (In Russian)
Timoshina, Elena V. 2017. “Methodology of judicial interpretation: Genesis and evolution of the realist approach”. Pravo i politika 12: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0706.2017.12.25079 (In Russian)
Timoshina, Elena V., Natalia S. Vasilieva, Arseniy A. Kraevsky, Vyacheslav E. Kondurov, Daria A. Soshnikova. 2022. Strategies of judicial interpretation and principles of law. St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg University Press. (In Russian)
Troper, Michel. 2006. “A realist theory of interpretation”. Sravnitelnoe constitutionnoe obozrenie 1 (54): 136–143. (In Russian)
Downloads
Published
2024-10-14
How to Cite
Fatalieva, D. A. (2024). Methods of judicial argumentation in case of semantic uncertainty of a legal text. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 15(3), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2024.308
Issue
Section
Public and Private Law: Applied Research
License
Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
