Separate opinions as argumentative activity type
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 2020 |
| Host editors |
|
| Book title | Reason to Dissent |
| Book subtitle | Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation |
| Series | Studies in Logic. Logic and Argumentation |
| Event | 3rd European Conference on Argumentation |
| Volume | Issue number | III |
| Pages (from-to) | 267-278 |
| Publisher | London: College Publications |
| Organisations |
|
| Abstract | National and international systems of law differ in as far as they allow separate opinions to be published. In the Netherlands, for example, collegial courts speak with one voice. In the European Court of Human Rights, however, court members who disagree with the majority of the court may express their divergent views in a separate opinion. In this paper I will investigate institutional constraints that may affect the argumentation brought forward in separate opinions and I will set about defining separate opinions as a distinct argumentative activity type. |
| Document type | Conference contribution |
| Language | English |
| Published at | https://www.collegepublications.co.uk/logic/sla/?00014 |
| Downloads |
Separate opinions as argumentative activity type
(Final published version)
|
| Permalink to this page | |