Improving the Judicial Review of Common-Law Argumentation

IMPROVING THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMMON-LAW ARGUMENTATION, Frans H. van Eemeren, ed., Newport News, VA: Vale Press, 2002

17 Pages Posted: 17 Sep 2008  

Ryan Patrick Alford

Lakehead University - Bora Laskin Faculty of Law

Abstract

American scholars of legal rhetoric have taken a position on the disconnectedness between normative legal theory and legal practice, particularly the practice of forensic oratory, which must be addressed before pragma-dialectical argumentation theorists can move forward to concrete and constructive engagement with American legal theorists. This engagement could provide benefits and insights to both parties, espcially because of the structural similarity between the prescriptive dimension of dialectical argumentation theory and the procedural norms of the common law. In particular, pragma-dialectical argumentation theory might prove helpful to jurists seeking a more effective approach to the 'harmless error analysis' of courtroom argumentation.

Keywords: rhetoric, stanley fish, james boyd white, argumentation theory, harmless error analysis, forensic oratory, closing arguments, summations, appellate review, pragma-dialectics, critical legal studies, Aristotle, van Eemeren

JEL Classification: K14

Suggested Citation

Alford, Ryan Patrick, Improving the Judicial Review of Common-Law Argumentation. IMPROVING THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMMON-LAW ARGUMENTATION, Frans H. van Eemeren, ed., Newport News, VA: Vale Press, 2002. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=918823

Ryan Patrick Alford (Contact Author)

Lakehead University - Bora Laskin Faculty of Law ( email )

955 Oliver Road
Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5E1
Canada

Paper statistics

Downloads
89
Rank
236,247
Abstract Views
748