{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,21]],"date-time":"2025-06-21T04:07:19Z","timestamp":1750478839763,"version":"3.41.0"},"reference-count":62,"publisher":"Walter de Gruyter GmbH","issue":"1","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,6,27]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:p>In this paper it is shown how certain defeasible argumentation schemes can be used to represent the logical structure of the most common types of argument used for statutory interpretation both in civil and common law. The method is based on an argumentation structure in which the conclusion, namely, the meaning attributed to a legal source, is modeled as a claim that needs that is be supported by pro and con defeasible arguments. The defeasible nature of each scheme is shown by means of critical questions, which identify the default conditions for the accepting interpretative arguments and provide a method for evaluating a given argument as weak or strong.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1515\/ijld-2017-0002","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2017,7,3]],"date-time":"2017-07-03T07:54:20Z","timestamp":1499068460000},"page":"47-83","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":9,"title":["Arguments of statutory interpretation and argumentation schemes"],"prefix":"10.1515","volume":"2","author":[{"given":"Fabrizio","family":"Macagno","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"ArgLab-Instituto de Filosofia da Nova (IFILNOVA), Universidade Nova de Lisboa , Lisbon , Portugal"}]},{"given":"Douglas","family":"Walton","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"CRRAR, University of Windsor , Windsor , Canada"}]}],"member":"374","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,6,20]]},"reference":[{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_001_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ab1Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Aalto-Heinil\u00e4, Maija. 2016. Fairness in statutory interpretation: Text, purpose or intention? International Journal of Legal Discourse 1(1). 193\u2013211.","DOI":"10.1515\/ijld-2016-0004"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_002_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ab2Aa","unstructured":"Aristotle. 1991. Topics. In Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I. Princeton: Princeton University Press."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_003_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ab3Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ashley, Kevin. 1991. Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(6). 753\u2013796. doi:10.1016\/0020-7373(91)90011-U.","DOI":"10.1016\/0020-7373(91)90011-U"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_004_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ab4Aa","unstructured":"Atlas, Jay David & Stephen Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 1\u201362. New York: Academic Press."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_005_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ab5Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bench-Capon, Trevor & Henry Prakken. 2010. Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(2). 153\u2013174. doi:10.1007\/s10506-010-9094-8.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-010-9094-8"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_006_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ab6Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bochenski, Innocent Marie-Joseph. 1974. An analysis of authority. In Frederick Adelman (ed.), Authority, 58\u201365. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-94-010-2031-2_6"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_007_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ab7Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Capone, Alessandro. 2011. Default Semantics and the architecture of the mind. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6). 1741\u20131754. doi:10.1016\/j.pragma.2010.11.004.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.pragma.2010.11.004"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_008_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ab8Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Chiassoni, Pierluigi, Eveline Feteris & Hanna Maria Kreuzbauer. 2016. Taking stock of the past: Rhetoric, topics, hermeneutics. In Enrico Pattaro & Corrado Roversi (eds.), A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence, 1693\u20131713. Amsterdam: Springer.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-94-007-1479-3_51"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_009_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ab9Aa","unstructured":"Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 2003. Topica. (ed.) Tobias Reinhardt. Oxford: Oxford University Press."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_010_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac10Aa","unstructured":"Colombo, Giovanna Maria. 2003. Sapiens aequitas: L\u2019equit\u00e0 nella riflessione canonistica tra i due codici. Rome: Pontificia Universit\u00e0 Gregoriana."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_011_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac11Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Damele, Giovanni. 2016. Adventures of a metaphor. Apian imagery in the history of political thought. In Elisabetta Gola & Francesca Ervas (eds.), Metaphor and communication, 173\u2013188. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.","DOI":"10.1075\/milcc.5.09dam"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_012_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac12Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Dascal, Marcelo & Jerzy Wr\u00f3blewski. 1988. Transparency and doubt: Understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in law. Law and Philosophy 7(2). 203\u2013224.","DOI":"10.1007\/BF00144156"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_013_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac13Aa","unstructured":"Easterbrook, Frank H. 1984. Legal interpretation and the power of the judiciary. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 7. 87\u201399."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_014_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac14Aa","unstructured":"Friesen, Jeffrey. 1996. When common law courts interpret civil codes. Wisconsin International Law Journal 15. 1\u201327."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_015_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac15Aa","unstructured":"Gold, Andrew. 2006. Absurd results, Scrivener\u2019s errors, and statutory interpretation. University of Cincinnati Law Review 75. 25\u201386."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_016_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac16Aa","unstructured":"Gordon, Thomas. 2010. An overview of the Carneades argumentation support system. In Christopher Reed & Christopher Tindale (eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton\u2019s theories of reasoning and argument, 145\u2013156. London: College Publications."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_017_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac17Aa","unstructured":"Guastini, Riccardo. 2011. Interpretare e argomentare. Milano: Giuffr\u00e8."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_018_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac18Aa","unstructured":"Halld\u00e9n, S\u00f6ren. 1960. True love, true humour and true religion: A semantic study. Lund: Gleerlup."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_019_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac19Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Horovitz, Joseph. 1972. Law and logic: A critical account of legal argument. Wien: Springer-Verlag.","DOI":"10.2307\/1227721"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_020_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac20Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hutton, Christopher. 2009. Language, meaning and the law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.","DOI":"10.3366\/edinburgh\/9780748633500.001.0001"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_021_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac21Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2005. Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093\/acprof:oso\/9780199261987.001.0001.","DOI":"10.1093\/acprof:oso\/9780199261987.001.0001"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_022_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac22Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.","DOI":"10.1093\/acprof:oso\/9780199892655.001.0001"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_023_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac23Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kennedy, Duncan. 2007. A Left Phenomenological Critique of the Hart\/Kelsen Theory of Legal Interpretation. Kritische Justiz 40(3). 296\u2013305.","DOI":"10.5771\/0023-4834-2007-3-296"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_024_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac24Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kreuzbauer, Guenther. 2008. Topics in contemporary legal argumentation: Some remarks on the topical nature of legal argumentation in the continental law tradition. Informal Logic 28(1). 71\u201385.","DOI":"10.22329\/il.v28i1.515"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_025_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac25Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.","DOI":"10.7551\/mitpress\/5526.001.0001"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_026_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac26Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Macagno, Fabrizio. 2012. Presumptive reasoning in interpretation. Implicatures and conflicts of presumptions. Argumentation 26(2). 233\u2013265. doi:10.1007\/s10503-011-9232-9.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10503-011-9232-9"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_027_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac27Aa","unstructured":"Macagno, Fabrizio. 2015a. Arguments of interpretation and argumentation schemes. In Maurizio Manzin, Federico Puppo & Serena Tomasi (eds.), Studies on argumentation and legal philosophy. Further steps towards a pluralistic approach, 51\u201380. Trento: Universit\u00e0 degli studi di Trento."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_028_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac28Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Macagno, Fabrizio. 2015b. A means-end classification of argumentation schemes. In Frans van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.), Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory, 183\u2013201. Cham: Springer.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-21103-9_14"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_029_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac29Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Macagno, Fabrizio & Alessandro Capone. 2016. Interpretative disputes, explicatures, and argumentative reasoning. Argumentation 30(4). 399\u2013422. doi:10.1007\/s10503-015-9347-5.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10503-015-9347-5"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_030_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac30Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton. 2009. Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric 42(2). 154\u2013182. doi:10.1353\/par.0.0034.","DOI":"10.1353\/par.0.0034"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_031_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac31Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017\/CBO9781139565776.","DOI":"10.1017\/CBO9781139565776"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_032_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac32Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton. 2015. Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philosophy and Rhetoric 48(1). 26\u201353. doi:10.1353\/par.2015.0005.","DOI":"10.5325\/philrhet.48.1.0026"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_033_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac33Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor. 2014. Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation. In Rinke Hoekstra (ed.), Proceedings of JURIX 2014: The twenty-seventh annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems, 11\u201320. Amsterdam: IOS Press.","DOI":"10.3233\/978-1-61499-468-8-11"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_034_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac34Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton & Giovanni Sartor. 2017, forth.. Pragmatic maxims and presumptions in legal interpretation. Law and Philosophy.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10982-017-9306-4"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_035_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac35Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale. 2016. Analogical arguments: Inferential structures and defeasibility conditions. Argumentation. 1\u201323. doi:10.1007\/s10503-016-9406-6.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10503-016-9406-6"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_036_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac36Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"MacCormick, Neil. 1995. Argumentation and interpretation in law. Argumentation 9(3). 467\u2013480. doi:10.1007\/BF00733152.","DOI":"10.1007\/BF00733152"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_037_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac37Aa","unstructured":"MacCormick, Neil & Robert Summers (eds.). 1991. Interpreting statutes: A comparative study. Aldershot: Dartmouth."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_038_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac38Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Manning, John. 2003. The absurdity doctrine. Harvard Law Review 116. 2389\u20132390.","DOI":"10.2307\/1342768"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_039_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac39Aa","unstructured":"Patterson, Dennis. 2004. Interpretation in law. San Diego Law Review 42. 685\u2013710."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_040_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac40Aa","unstructured":"Perelman, Chaim. 1976. Logique juridique. Paris: Dalloz."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_041_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac41Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Perelman, Chaim. 1980. Justice, law and argument. Dordrecht: Reidel.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-94-009-9010-4"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_042_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac42Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sartor, Giovanni, Douglas Walton, Fabrizio Macagno & Antonino Rotolo. 2014. Argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation: A logical analysis. In Rinke Hoekstra (ed.), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 271, 11\u201320. Amsterdam: IOS Press. doi:10.3233\/978-1-61499-468-8-11.","DOI":"10.3233\/978-1-61499-468-8-11"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_043_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac43Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Schiappa, Edward. 1993. Arguing about definitions. Argumentation 7(4). 403\u2013417. doi:10.1007\/BF00711058.","DOI":"10.1007\/BF00711058"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_044_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac44Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Slocum, Brian. 2015. Ordinary meaning: A theory of the most fundamental principle of legal interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.","DOI":"10.7208\/chicago\/9780226304991.001.0001"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_045_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac45Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Soboleva, Anita. 2007. Topical jurisprudence. Reconciliation of law and rhetoric. In Anne Wagner, Wouter Werner & Deborah Cao (eds.), Interpretation, law and the construction of meanin, 49\u201363. Amsterdam: Springer.","DOI":"10.1007\/1-4020-5320-7_3"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_046_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac46Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sorensen, Roy. 1991. Vagueness and the desiderata for definition. In James Fetzer, David Shatz & George Schlesinger (eds.), Definitions and definability: Philosophical perspectives, 71\u2013109. Dordrecht: Springer.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-94-011-3346-3_4"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_047_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac47Aa","unstructured":"Stump, Eleonore. 2004. Boethius\u2019s \u201cDe topicis differentiis\u201d. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_048_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac48Aa","unstructured":"Summers, Robert & Geoffrey Marshall. 1992. The argument from ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation. Nothern Irland Legal Quarterly 43(3). 213\u2013236."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_049_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac49Aa","unstructured":"Tarello, Giovanni. 1980. L\u2019interpretazione della legge. Milano: Giuffr\u00e8."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_050_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac50Aa","unstructured":"Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_051_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac51Aa","unstructured":"Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke & Allan Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_052_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac52Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Verheij, Bart. 2003. Deflog: On the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. Journal of Logic and Computation 13(3). 319\u2013346.","DOI":"10.1093\/logcom\/13.3.319"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_053_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac53Aa","unstructured":"Viehweg, Theodor. 1953. Topik und Jurisprudenz : Ein Beitrag zur rechtswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung. Munich: C H Beck\u2019sche Verlagsbuchhandlung."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_054_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac54Aa","unstructured":"Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal argumentation and Evidence. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_055_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac55Aa","unstructured":"Walton, Douglas. 2010. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_056_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac56Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Walton, Douglas. 2014. Baseballs and arguments from fairness. Artificial intelligence and law 22(4). 423\u2013449.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-013-9151-1"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_057_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac57Aa","unstructured":"Walton, Douglas & Marcin Koszowy. 2015. Two kinds of arguments from authority in the ad verecundiam fallacy. In Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, 1483\u20131492. Amsterdam: Sic Sat."},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_058_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac58Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Walton, Douglas & Fabrizio Macagno. 2015. A classification system for argumentation schemes. Argument and Computation 6(3). 219\u2013245. doi:10.1080\/19462166.2015.1123772.","DOI":"10.1080\/19462166.2015.1123772"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_059_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac59Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Walton, Douglas, Fabrizio Macagno & Giovanni Sartor. 2014. Interpretative argumentation schemes. In Rinke Hoekstra (ed.), JURIX 2014: The twenty-seventh annual conference, vol. 271, 21\u201322. New York: IOS Press. doi:10.3233\/978-1-61499-468-8-21.","DOI":"10.3233\/978-1-61499-468-8-21"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_060_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac60Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017\/CBO9780511802034.","DOI":"10.1017\/CBO9780511802034"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_061_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac61Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Walton, Douglas & Giovanni Sartor. 2013. Teleological justification of argumentation schemes. Argumentation 27(2). 111\u2013142. doi:10.1007\/s10503-012-9262-y.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10503-012-9262-y"},{"key":"2021062206191312937_j_ijld-2017-0002_ref_062_w2aab2b8b7b1b7b1ab2ac62Aa","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Walton, Douglas, Giovanni Sartor & Fabrizio Macagno. 2016. An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 24(1). 51\u201391. doi:10.1007\/s10506-016-9179-0.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10506-016-9179-0"}],"container-title":["International Journal of Legal Discourse"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/www.degruyter.com\/view\/j\/ijld.2017.2.issue-1\/ijld-2017-0002\/ijld-2017-0002.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyter.com\/document\/doi\/10.1515\/ijld-2017-0002\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyter.com\/document\/doi\/10.1515\/ijld-2017-0002\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,20]],"date-time":"2025-06-20T22:49:53Z","timestamp":1750459793000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyter.com\/document\/doi\/10.1515\/ijld-2017-0002\/html"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2017,4,1]]},"references-count":62,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,6,20]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,6,27]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1515\/ijld-2017-0002"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/ijld-2017-0002","relation":{},"ISSN":["2364-8821","2364-883X"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"2364-8821"},{"type":"electronic","value":"2364-883X"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2017,4,1]]}}}