Argumentation Sep 2021 Open Access

Defeasibility, Law, and Argumentation: A Critical View from an Interpretative Standpoint

Francesca Poggi University of Milan

Abstract

AbstractThe phenomenon of defeasibility has long been a central theme in legal literature. This essay aims to shed new light on that phenomenon by clarifying some fundamental conceptual issues. First, the most widespread definition of legal defeasibility is examined and criticized. The essay shows that such a definition is poorly constructed, inaccurate and generates many problems. Indeed, the definition hides the close relationship between legal defeasibility and legal interpretation. Second, this essay argues that no new definition is needed. I will show that from an interpretative standpoint, there is nothing special about legal defeasibility. Contrary to what some authors maintain, no unique or privileged source of legal defeasibility exists, nor are there privileged arguments to justify it. Specifically, legal defeasibility refers to interpretative outcomes deriving from interpretative arguments that, on the one hand, are very different from one another, and, on the other, are often employed to justify different interpretative outcomes. In the legal field, the problems related to defeasibility have little in common with the problems that this label covers in other areas—such as logic or epistemology—and they are nothing but the well-known problems related to legal interpretation. In conclusion, this paper argues that as far as legal argumentation is concerned, the notion of legal defeasibility lacks explanatory power, and it should be abandoned.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2021-09-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-020-09544-w
CompPile
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
argument
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (83) · 2 in this index

  1. Carlos E Alchourrón (1993)
    Deontic logic in computer science
  2. Carlos E Alchourrón (1996)
    Alchourrón, Carlos E. 1996a. Detachment and defeasibility in deontic logic. Studia Logica 57: 5–18.
    Studia Logica  ↗
  3. Carlos E Alchourrón (1996)
    Alchourrón, Carlos E. 1996b. On law and logic. Ratio Juris 9: 331–348.
    Ratio Juris  ↗
  4. Carlos E Alchourrón (1996)
    El derecho y la Justicia. Enciclopedia Iberoamericana de filosofía
  5. Larry Alexander (2011)
    The challenge of originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
     ↗
Show all 83 →
  1. Mira Ariel (2002)
    Ariel, Mira. 2002. The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 361–402.
    Journal of Pragmatics  ↗
  2. Manuel Atienza (1998)
    A theory of legal sentences
     ↗
  3. Manuel Atienza (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  4. Fernando Atria (1999)
    Atria, Fernando. 1999. Legal reasoning and legal theory revisited. Law and Philosophy 18: 537–577.
    Law and Philosophy
  5. Fernando Atria (2001)
    On law and legal reasoning
  6. Annette Barnes (1988)
    On interpretation: A critical analysis
  7. Juan Carlos Bayón (2000)
    Bayón, Juan Carlos. 2000. Derrotabilidad, indeterminación del derecho y positivismo jurídico. Isonomía 13: 87–117.
    Isonomía
  8. Juan Carlos Bayón (2002)
    Bayón, Juan Carlos. 2002. Why is legal reasoning defeasible? Diritto e questioni pubbliche 2: 1–18.
    Diritto e questioni pubbliche
  9. Brian H Bix (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  10. Brian Butler (2016)
    Pragmatics and law. Philosophical perspectives
  11. Pierluigi Chiassoni (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  12. Pierluigi Chiassoni (2019)
    Interpretation without truth
     ↗
  13. Luís Duarte D’Almeida (2015)
    Allowing for exceptions. A theory of defences and defeasibility in law
     ↗
  14. Andrea Dolcetti (2016)
    Dolcetti, Andrea, and Giovanni Battista Ratti. 2016. La derrotabilidad jurídica como relación sistemática com…
    Analisi and diritto
  15. Veronica M Dougherty (1994)
    Dougherty, Veronica M. 1994. Absurdity and the limits of literalism: Defining the absurd result principle in …
    The American University Law Review
  16. Ronald Dworkin (1977)
    Taking rights seriously
  17. Jordi Ferrer Beltrán (2009)
    Norme, principi e logica
  18. Jordi Ferrer Beltrán (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  19. Feteris (2002)
    A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argum…
    Argumentation
  20. Feteris (2016)
    Prototypical Argumentative Patterns in a Legal Context: The Role of Pragmatic A…
    Argumentation
  21. Tammy Gales (2020)
    Gales, Tammy, and Lawrence M. Solan. 2020. Revisiting a classic problem in statutory interpretation: Is a min…
    Giorgia State University Law Review
  22. Riccardo Guastini (2010)
    Guastini, Riccardo. 2010. Defettibilità, lacune assiologiche ed interpretazione. Revus 14: 57–72.
    Revus  ↗
  23. Riccardo Guastini (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  24. Jaap Hage (2003)
    Hage, Jaap. 2003. Law and defeasibility. Artificial intelligence and law 11: 221–243.
    Artificial intelligence and law  ↗
  25. Herbert L.A. Hart (1948)
    Hart, Herbert L.A.. 1948. The ascription of responsibilities and rights. Proceeding of the Aristotelian Socie…
    Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society  ↗
  26. Raffael Hernandez Marín (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  27. Richard Holton (2011)
    The philosophical foundations of language in the law
     ↗
  28. Koons, Robert, 2017. Defeasible reasoning. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. N. Zalta, https://…
  29. Mark Lance (2008)
    Challenging moral particularism
  30. Neil MacCormick (1978)
    Legal reasoning and legal theory
  31. Neil MacCormick (1995)
    Informatics and the foundation of legal reasoning
     ↗
  32. Neil MacCormick (2005)
    Rhetoric and the rule of law: A theory of legal reasoning
     ↗
  33. JL Mackie (1955)
    Mackie, J.L. 1955. Responsibility and language. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 33: 143–159.
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  34. David Makinson (2005)
    Bridges from classical to nonmonotonic logic
  35. Andrei Marmor (2005)
    Interpretation and legal theory
  36. Andrei Marmor (2016)
    Pragmatics and law. Philosophical perspectives
     ↗
  37. Michael S. Moore (1981)
    Moore, Michael S.. 1981. The semantics of judging. Southern California Law Review 54: 151–294.
    Southern California Law Review
  38. Victoria Nourse (2011)
    Nourse, Victoria. 2011. Two kinds of plain meaning. Brooklyng Law Review 76: 997–1005.
    Brooklyng Law Review
  39. (1997)
    Defeasible deontic logic
  40. Donald Nute (2003)
    INAP 2001. LNCS (LNAI)
  41. Juan Manuel Pérez Bermejo (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  42. John L Pollock (1987)
    Pollock, John L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive science 11: 481–518.
    Cognitive science  ↗
  43. Francesca Poggi (2007)
    Poggi, Francesca. 2007. Semantics, pragmatics, and interpretation. A critical reading of some of Marmor’s The…
    Analisi and Diritto
  44. Francesca Poggi (2013)
    Poggi, Francesca. 2013. The myth of literal meaning in legal interpretation. Analisi and Diritto 2013: 313–335.
    Analisi and Diritto
  45. Henry Prakken (2001)
    Prakken, Henry. 2001. Modelling defeasibility in law: Logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informatica 48: 253–271.
    Fundamenta Informatica
  46. Henry Prakken (2004)
    Prakken, Henry, and Giovanni Sartor. 2004. The three faces of defeasibility in the law. Ratio Juris 17: 118–139.
    Ratio Juris  ↗
  47. Samuel Pufendorf (1688)
    De jure naturae et gentium libri octo
  48. Lorena Ramirez Ludeña (2018)
    Ramirez Ludeña, Lorena. 2018. The meaning of “literal meaning.” Analisi and Diritto 2018: 83–101.
    Analisi and Diritto
  49. Giovanni Battista Ratti (2009)
    Norme, principi e logica
  50. Giovanni Battista Ratti (2015)
    Ratti, Giovanni Battista. 2015. Two conceptions of legal system. Ragion pratica 34: 179–200.
    Ragion pratica
  51. François Recanati (2004)
    Literal meaning
  52. Maria Cristina Redondo (1997)
    Redondo, Maria Cristina. 1997. Teorías del derecho y indeterminación normativa. Doxa 20: 177–196.
    Doxa  ↗
  53. Maria Cristina Redondo (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  54. Jorge Rodríguez (2002)
    Lógica de los sistemas jurídicos
  55. Jorge Rodríguez (2003)
    Relevancia normativa en la justificación de las decisiones judiciales
  56. Jorge Rodríguez (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  57. Jorge Rodríguez (2017)
    Rodríguez, Jorge. 2017. Defeasibility and burden of proof. Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica 4…
    Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica
  58. Ragnar Rommetveit (1988)
    The written world
     ↗
  59. William David Ross (1930)
    The right and the good
  60. Alessio Sardo (2014)
    Teoria del diritto e analisi logica
  61. Giovanni Sartor (1995)
    Informatics and the foundation of legal reasoning
     ↗
  62. Giovanni Sartor (2006)
    Sartor, Giovanni. 2006. Syllogism and defeasibility: A comment on Neil MacCormick’s rhetoric and the rule of …
    EUI Working Papers Law
  63. Giovanni Sartor (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  64. Frederick Schauer (1991)
    Playing by the rules
  65. Frederick Schauer (1998)
    Schauer, Frederick. 1998. On the supposed defeasibility of legal rules. Current Legal Problems 48: 223–240.
    Current Legal Problems  ↗
  66. Frederick Schauer (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  67. John R Searle (1978)
    Searle, John R. 1978. Literal meaning. Erkenntnis 13: 207–224.
    Erkenntnis  ↗
  68. John R Searle (1980)
    Speech act theory and pragmatics
     ↗
  69. Lawrence B Solum (2010)
    Solum, Lawrence B. 2010. The interpretation-construction distinction. Constitutional commentary 27: 95–118.
    Constitutional commentary
  70. Arend Soeteman (2003)
    Soeteman, Arend. 2003. Legal logic? Or can we do without? Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 197–210.
    Artificial Intelligence and Law  ↗
  71. Strasser, Christian, Antonelli, G. Aldo. 2018. Non-monotonic logic. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosoph…
  72. Ruth Sullivan (2000)
    Les certitudes du droit/Certainty and the law
  73. Cass R Sunstein (2015)
    Sunstein, Cass R. 2015. There is nothing that interpretation just is. Constitutional Commentary 30: 193–212.
    Constitutional Commentary
  74. Marshall Swain (1974)
    Swain, Marshall. 1974. Epistemic defeasibility. American Philosophical Quarterly 11: 15–25.
    American Philosophical Quarterly
  75. Giovanni Tarello (1980)
    L’interpretazione della legge
  76. Frans H Van Eemeren (1992)
    Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation
  77. Wil J Waluchow (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  78. Glaville Williams (1988)
    Williams, Glaville. 1988. The logic of “Exceptions.” Cambridge Law Journal 47: 261–295.
    Cambridge Law Journal  ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 1 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. Argumentation Apr 2026
    A Normative Pragmatic Inquiry into the Volatility of Norms in Argumentation ↗
    Sally Jackson
    discourse analysis argument qualitative research public rhetoric
  2. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly Apr 2026
    Book Review: Environmental Preservation and the Grey Cliffs Conflict: Negotiating Common Narratives, Values, and Ethos PickeringK. (2024). Environmental Preservation and the Grey Cliffs Conflict: Negotiating Common Narratives, Values, and Ethos. Utah State University Press, 268 pp. ↗
    Mia Twomey
    argument book reviews
  3. Res Rhetorica Apr 2026
    Logos in ancient Greek discourse on rhetoric: An overview ↗
    Arkadiusz Sokolnicki
    classical rhetoric rhetorical criticism discourse analysis argument
  4. Assessing Writing Apr 2026
    Associations of adolescents’ argumentative writing scores and growth when evaluated by different human raters and artificial intelligence models ↗
    Deborah K. Reed; Sterett Mercer
    argument artificial intelligence
  5. Rhetoric of Health and Medicine Apr 2026
    Psyche or Soma?: An Analysis of the Medical Debates Over the Diagnosis and Treatment of “Transsexualism” ↗
    Samantha Rippetoe
    rhetorical criticism argument archival research