找回密碼
 To register

QQ登錄

只需一步，快速開(kāi)始

掃一掃，訪問(wèn)微社區(qū)

打印 上一主題 下一主題

Titlebook: Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives; Christian Dahlman,Eveline Feteris Book 2013 Springer Science+Business Media D

[復(fù)制鏈接]
查看: 29057|回復(fù): 50
樓主
發(fā)表于 2025-3-21 18:31:16 | 只看該作者 |倒序?yàn)g覽 |閱讀模式
書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives
編輯Christian Dahlman,Eveline Feteris
視頻videohttp://file.papertrans.cn/584/583685/583685.mp4
概述Provides access to recent developments in the theory of legal argumentation.Offers a wide spectrum of the relevant topics and approaches, including reasoning by consequences, pluralism, proportionalit
叢書(shū)名稱Law and Philosophy Library
圖書(shū)封面Titlebook: Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives; Christian Dahlman,Eveline Feteris Book 2013 Springer Science+Business Media D
描述.This book offers its readers an overview of recent developments in the theory of legal argumentation written by representatives from various disciplines, including argumentation theory, philosophy of law, logic and artificial intelligence. It presents an overview of contributions representative of different academic and legal cultures, and different continents and countries. The book contains contributions on strategic maneuvering, argumentum ad absurdum, argumentum ad hominem, consequentialist argumentation, weighing and balancing, the relation between legal argumentation and truth, the distinction between the context of discovery and context of justification, and the role of constitutive and regulative rules in legal argumentation. It is based on a selection of papers that were presented in the special workshop on Legal Argumentation organized at the 25th IVR World Congress for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy held 15-20 August 2011 in Frankfurt, Germany.? .
出版日期Book 2013
關(guān)鍵詞(Ir)rationality of Judicial Decision-Making; Advocacy in Legal Argumentation; Argumentation ad Absurdu
版次1
doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4670-1
isbn_softcover978-94-017-8235-7
isbn_ebook978-94-007-4670-1Series ISSN 1572-4395 Series E-ISSN 2215-0315
issn_series 1572-4395
copyrightSpringer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013
The information of publication is updating

書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives影響因子(影響力)




書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開(kāi)度




書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開(kāi)度學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives被引頻次




書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives年度引用




書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives年度引用學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives讀者反饋




書(shū)目名稱Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives讀者反饋學(xué)科排名




單選投票, 共有 0 人參與投票
 

0票 0%

Perfect with Aesthetics
 

0票 0%

Better Implies Difficulty
 

0票 0%

Good and Satisfactory
 

0票 0%

Adverse Performance
 

0票 0%

Disdainful Garbage
您所在的用戶組沒(méi)有投票權(quán)限
沙發(fā)
發(fā)表于 2025-3-21 23:50:14 | 只看該作者
The Rule of Law and the Ideal of a Critical Discussion,des a case. As a result the critical norms for evaluating argumentation are not applicable to a legal decision. In this contribution I will try to refute these two objections by showing how the ideals of a critical discussion relate to the ideals of the . and how these ideals function as starting po
板凳
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 01:56:26 | 只看該作者
地板
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 07:11:42 | 只看該作者
Construction or Reconstruction? On the Function of Argumentation in the Law,best . legal argument. This is the most attractive view, not in the least because its alternatives cannot well be defended. The most important objection against this view, that the best actual argument may lead to a wrong conclusion, is rejected because it presupposes that the legal consequences wer
5#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 09:23:12 | 只看該作者
Constitutive Rules and Coherence in Legal Argumentation: The Case of Extensive and Restrictive InteHart, 1994, Chap. 7). Herbert Hart suggested that, in those cases, judges act as surrogate legislatures by filling legal gaps. Indeed, this view is confirmed in this paper and made analytically clear: legal concepts can be holistically and inferentially characterized by arbitrarily large and connect
6#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 13:55:41 | 只看該作者
7#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 20:35:07 | 只看該作者
Carlos Bernal the quasi-inexistence of systematic and discursive – rather than activist – studies on the subject-matter, the analysis questions the appropriateness of this framework in efforts aimed at empo978-90-6704-976-4978-90-6704-609-1
8#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-22 22:23:36 | 只看該作者
9#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-23 03:59:42 | 只看該作者
Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives
10#
發(fā)表于 2025-3-23 08:03:14 | 只看該作者
1572-4395 entation organized at the 25th IVR World Congress for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy held 15-20 August 2011 in Frankfurt, Germany.? .978-94-017-8235-7978-94-007-4670-1Series ISSN 1572-4395 Series E-ISSN 2215-0315
 關(guān)于派博傳思  派博傳思旗下網(wǎng)站  友情鏈接
派博傳思介紹 公司地理位置 論文服務(wù)流程 影響因子官網(wǎng) 吾愛(ài)論文網(wǎng) 大講堂 北京大學(xué) Oxford Uni. Harvard Uni.
發(fā)展歷史沿革 期刊點(diǎn)評(píng) 投稿經(jīng)驗(yàn)總結(jié) SCIENCEGARD IMPACTFACTOR 派博系數(shù) 清華大學(xué) Yale Uni. Stanford Uni.
QQ|Archiver|手機(jī)版|小黑屋| 派博傳思國(guó)際 ( 京公網(wǎng)安備110108008328) GMT+8, 2025-10-13 05:22
Copyright © 2001-2015 派博傳思   京公網(wǎng)安備110108008328 版權(quán)所有 All rights reserved
快速回復(fù) 返回頂部 返回列表
万州区| 康定县| 安远县| 松原市| 蓝田县| 磐石市| 高安市| 双流县| 北海市| 咸阳市| 灵山县| 东辽县| 夏河县| 张掖市| 涪陵区| 都昌县| 平阴县| 保定市| 辽阳市| 遵义市| 汝阳县| 吉林市| 张家界市| 齐齐哈尔市| 石嘴山市| 禹城市| 额济纳旗| 三明市| 江门市| 琼海市| 闵行区| 清流县| 肥城市| 湘乡市| 会理县| 苗栗县| 中阳县| 绥化市| 平度市| 张北县| 多伦县|