title: Methods of judicial argumentation in case of semantic uncertainty of a legal text
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Fatalieva, Daria A.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2024-11-29T20:54:55Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2024-11-29T20:54:55Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2024-09
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Fatalieva, Daria A. 2024. “Methods of judicial argumentation in case of semantic uncertainty of a legal text”. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law 3: 665–683. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2024.308 (In Russian)
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2024.308
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/48023
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: While in non-legal texts linguistic uncertainty either does not hinder normal linguistic practices
  or can be removed by clarifications, the elimination of uncertainty in legal texts is complicated
  since peculiarities of legal language precludes its complete exclusion. Accordingly, the task of
  overcoming legal uncertainty is delegated to the judge and the question arises as to what methods
  of dealing with the legal text are applicable. The article examines the approaches distinguished
  in the theory of legal argumentation to assess whether they can offer a methodology which will
  be able to overcome the policy consequences of the language “open texture” as a characteristic of
  uncertainty of the natural language in which legal texts are presented by formalizing the process
  of choosing one of the possible options of the legal text interpretation in judicial decisions. The
  author concludes that the methods to deal with an uncertain legal text offered by the topicalrhetorical
  and dialectical approach are limited to the formulation of requirements for the process
  of argumentation (which do not guarantee absolute predictability of the decision to be made), as
  well as criteria to evaluate the justification of the decision retrospectively. In turn, the possibility
  to critically assess the arguments limits the arbitrariness, forcing the judge to follow standards of
  acceptability and sufficiency of the reasoning to justify their decision.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.description.sponsorship
metadata.value: The research was funded by the St. Petersburg University state assignment for the project “Legal and
  linguistic uncertainty in the texts of legal acts taking into account their communicative features and legal
  functions” (the research work is registered with the Center for Information Technologies and Systems of
  Executive Authorities (CITIS), no. AAAA-A19-119100190156-0).
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Vestnik of St Petersburg University. Law;Volume 15; Issue 3
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: legal argumentation theory
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: legal uncertainty
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: judicial formalism
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: judicial realism
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: language open texture
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: rational discourse
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Methods of judicial argumentation in case of semantic uncertainty of a legal text
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 665-683.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/48023/1/665-683.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 695,06 kB