Projects per year
Successful accounts of analogy in law have two burdens to discharge. First, they must reflect the fact that the conclusion of an argument by analogy is a normative claim about how to decide a certain case (the target case). Second, they must not fail to accord relevance to the fact that the source case was authoritatively decided in a certain way. We argue in the first half of this paper (Sections 2 to 4) that the common view of the structure of analogical arguments in law cannot overcome these hurdles. In the second half (Sections 5 to 7) we develop an original account that aims to succeed where others failed.
|Number of pages||35|
|Early online date||10 Sep 2016|
|Publication status||Published - Jun 2017|
- judicial precedent
- legal argumentation
- legal reasoning
- justification of judicial decisions
FingerprintDive into the research topics of 'The structure of arguments by analogy in Law'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
- 1 Finished
IIRG: Foundations of Normativity International Research Group in Philosophy, Politics & Law
Chrisman, M., Duarte d'Almeida, L. & Oberman, K.
1/07/15 → 30/06/17
Project: University Awarded Project Funding
Luis Duarte d'Almeida
- Edinburgh Centre for Legal Theory
- School of Law - UoE Honorary staff
Person: Academic: Research Active , Affiliated Independent Researcher