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
Search in 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.

Cites in this index (2)

  1. Feteris (2016)
    Prototypical Argumentative Patterns in a Legal Context: The Role of Pragmatic A…
    Argumentation
  2. Feteris (2002)
    A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argum…
    Argumentation
Also cites 37 works outside this index ↓
  1. Carlos E Alchourrón (1996)
    Alchourrón, Carlos E. 1996a. Detachment and defeasibility in deontic logic. Studia Logica 57: 5–18.
    Studia Logica  ↗
  2. Carlos E Alchourrón (1996)
    Alchourrón, Carlos E. 1996b. On law and logic. Ratio Juris 9: 331–348.
    Ratio Juris  ↗
  3. Larry Alexander (2011)
    The challenge of originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation
     ↗
  4. Mira Ariel (2002)
    Ariel, Mira. 2002. The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 361–402.
    Journal of Pragmatics  ↗
  5. Manuel Atienza (1998)
    A theory of legal sentences
     ↗
  6. Manuel Atienza (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  7. Brian H Bix (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  8. Pierluigi Chiassoni (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  9. Pierluigi Chiassoni (2019)
    Interpretation without truth
     ↗
  10. Luís Duarte D’Almeida (2015)
    Allowing for exceptions. A theory of defences and defeasibility in law
     ↗
  11. Jordi Ferrer Beltrán (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  12. Riccardo Guastini (2010)
    Guastini, Riccardo. 2010. Defettibilità, lacune assiologiche ed interpretazione. Revus 14: 57–72.
    Revus  ↗
  13. Riccardo Guastini (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  14. Jaap Hage (2003)
    Hage, Jaap. 2003. Law and defeasibility. Artificial intelligence and law 11: 221–243.
    Artificial intelligence and law  ↗
  15. 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  ↗
  16. Raffael Hernandez Marín (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  17. Richard Holton (2011)
    The philosophical foundations of language in the law
     ↗
  18. Neil MacCormick (1995)
    Informatics and the foundation of legal reasoning
     ↗
  19. Neil MacCormick (2005)
    Rhetoric and the rule of law: A theory of legal reasoning
     ↗
  20. JL Mackie (1955)
    Mackie, J.L. 1955. Responsibility and language. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 33: 143–159.
    Australasian Journal of Philosophy  ↗
  21. Andrei Marmor (2016)
    Pragmatics and law. Philosophical perspectives
     ↗
  22. Juan Manuel Pérez Bermejo (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  23. John L Pollock (1987)
    Pollock, John L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive science 11: 481–518.
    Cognitive science  ↗
  24. Henry Prakken (2004)
    Prakken, Henry, and Giovanni Sartor. 2004. The three faces of defeasibility in the law. Ratio Juris 17: 118–139.
    Ratio Juris  ↗
  25. Maria Cristina Redondo (1997)
    Redondo, Maria Cristina. 1997. Teorías del derecho y indeterminación normativa. Doxa 20: 177–196.
    Doxa  ↗
  26. Maria Cristina Redondo (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  27. Jorge Rodríguez (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  28. Ragnar Rommetveit (1988)
    The written world
     ↗
  29. Giovanni Sartor (1995)
    Informatics and the foundation of legal reasoning
     ↗
  30. Giovanni Sartor (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  31. Frederick Schauer (1998)
    Schauer, Frederick. 1998. On the supposed defeasibility of legal rules. Current Legal Problems 48: 223–240.
    Current Legal Problems  ↗
  32. Frederick Schauer (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  33. John R Searle (1978)
    Searle, John R. 1978. Literal meaning. Erkenntnis 13: 207–224.
    Erkenntnis  ↗
  34. John R Searle (1980)
    Speech act theory and pragmatics
     ↗
  35. Arend Soeteman (2003)
    Soeteman, Arend. 2003. Legal logic? Or can we do without? Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 197–210.
    Artificial Intelligence and Law  ↗
  36. Wil J Waluchow (2012)
    The logic of legal requirements
     ↗
  37. 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. Res Rhetorica Apr 2026
    Logos in ancient Greek discourse on rhetoric: An overview ↗
    Arkadiusz Sokolnicki
    classical rhetoric rhetorical criticism discourse analysis argument
  2. 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
  3. Rhetoric of Health and Medicine Apr 2026
    Psyche or Soma? ↗
    Samantha Rippetoe
    rhetorical criticism argument archival research
  4. Argumentation Mar 2026
    The Recursive Argument Structure Reconsidered ↗
    Shiyang Yu
    argument
  5. Argumentation Mar 2026
    Between Rationality and Self-protection: Student-Constructed Arguments on Fast Food Consumption and Antibiotic Overuse as Public Health Issues in Biology Education ↗
    Eliza Rybska; Michał Klichowski; Costas P. Constantinou; Barbara Jankowiak
    writing pedagogy teacher development argument qualitative research