Abstract
This article approaches a hitherto understudied topic in counterterrorism discourse, namely argumentative speech, as it relates to measures impacting on human rights. Frame analysis is applied for the first time in this area to statements and other types of ‘public speech’ communicated by the main US and EU executive institutions between September 2001 and September 2010. After detailing some methodological considerations, the article focuses on the pragmatic justification pattern and assesses its persuasion potential along a series of resonance criteria. It then argues for a more rigorous analysis of normative argumentation along a series of inductively derived analytical concepts and for a switch in focus from the liberty versus security trade-off and from the notion of exceptionalism towards that of pragmatism, given the increased odds of ‘success’ of this type of argumentation in the context of de facto normative change.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
