| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	Argument avtoritete v pravni argumentaciji : magistrsko delo
Authors:	ID Resnik, Rok (Author) ID Keresteš, Tomaž (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	MAG_Resnik_Rok_2021.pdf (514,97 KB) MD5: E64C09EE1CCF7EEC7C3588AE8566F279 PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/72ca402f-e044-4754-bd1d-cd1ba072ba28
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Master's thesis/paper
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	V skladu s Kaufmannovo proceduralno-materialno teorijo legitimnosti prava ima v pravu argumentacija zelo pomembno vlogo, saj lahko samo logično dosledna racionalna argumentacija znotraj racionalnega diskurza privede do praktično utemeljenega in legitimnega spoznanja. Zahteva po racionalnosti pravnega diskurza postavi pod vprašaj dopustnost oziroma legitimnost sklicevanja na argument avtoritete (argumentum ad verecundiam) v pravni argumentaciji, saj gre za neformalno-logično zmoten argument, ki ni prepričljiv. V pravu se argument avtoritete pojavlja v treh pojavnih oblikah (precedens, ustaljena sodna praksa in prevladujoče mnenje). Z uporabo argumenta avtoritete pravni redi zasledujejo pravno varnost, predvidljivost in stabilnost prava ter enakost pred zakonom. Omejitve uporabe argumenta avtoritete pa nalaga temeljna zahteva po pravilnosti oziroma legitimnosti pravnih odločitev, izpeljana iz načel pravne države, pravne varnosti, pravičnosti in namena prava samega. Racionalnost pravnega diskurza je nujni pogoj za učinkovito doseganje namena prava. V skladu z zahtevo po racionalnosti pravnega diskurza se ni dopustno v pravni argumentaciji sklicevati na argument avtoritete kot nosilni, temveč zgolj podporni argument. Uporaba argumenta avtoritete je v pravni argumentaciji upravičena, v kolikor ne dopušča utemeljevanja pravnih odločitev izključno s sklicevanjem nanj. Z vidika Kaufmannove proceduralno-materialne teorije legitimnosti prava se je kot najustreznejša pokazala doktrina ustaljene sodne prakse, ki dosega trdnost, predvidljivost in enako uporabo prava in hkrati ohranja zadostno mero fleksibilnosti, ki omogoča prilagajanje prava družbi in s tem izpolnjevanje njegove naloge sredstva za dosego legitimnih družbenih interesov ne da bi s tem ogrozila racionalnost pravnega diskurza z dopustnostjo sklicevanja na argument ustaljene sodne prakse kot nosilni argument v podporo pravne odločitve.
Keywords:	Argument avtoritete, Teorija argumentacije, proceduralno-materialna teorija legitimnosti prava, precedens, prevladujoče mnenje, ustaljena sodna praksa, stare decisis, ustavno procesno jamstvo, nosilni argument, podporni argument.
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Place of performance:	Maribor
Publisher:	[R. Resnik]
Year of publishing:	2021
Number of pages:	39 str.
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-80793
UDC:	340.1(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:	83859715
Publication date in DKUM:	08.11.2021
Views:	930
Downloads:	120
Metadata:
Categories:	PF
:	Copy citation

Average score:	(0 votes)
Your score:	Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Licences

License:	CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Link:	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:	The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:	15.10.2021

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	Argument of authority in legal argumentation
Abstract:	According to Kaufmann’s procedural-material theory of legal legitimacy argumentation plays a very important role in law, since only logically consistent rational argumentation within a rational discourse can lead to a practically justified and legitimate knowledge. The demand for rationality of legal discourse raises doubts about the legitimacy of using the argument of appealing to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) in legal argumentation, since it is an informal-logical fallacy and as such does not hold any persuasive value. In law the argument of authority is being used in three different variations (precedent, established case law and prevailing opinion). By using argument of authority legal systems pursue stability, predictability and equality before the law. On the other hand one must also take into consideration the legal principles and values that limit the role and use of argument of appealing to authority in law. Such a limitation is being imposed by a general demand for the correctness or legitimacy of legal decisions that is derived from the principle of Rule of law, legal security, fairness and the purpose of law itself. Rationality of discourse is a precondition for effective pursuit of the purpose of law. Because of the demand for rationality of legal discourse it is illegitimate to allow the use of argument of authority as a justifying argument. Argument of authority should only be used as an auxiliary argument and never as a justifying argument. The use of argument of authority in law is only permissible, if it isn’t used as a justifying argument to support a legal claim. From the perspective of Kaufmann’s procedural-material theory of legal legitimacy the best use of argument of authority is achieved by adopting the doctrine of established case law that achieves stability, predictability and equal treatment before the law whilst still maintaining a sufficient level of flexibility that allows for the adjustment of law to the societal changes and thus fulfilling it’s role of an instrument for the pursuit of legal subject’s legitimate goals without compromising the rationality of legal discourse by allowing the use of argument of authority as a justifying argument and not merely an auxiliary argument.
Keywords:	Argument of authority, theory of argumentation, procedural-material theory of legal legitimacy, precedent, prevailing opinion, established case law, stare decisis, constitutional procedural guarantee, justifying argument, auxiliary argument.

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back

Logos of partners