Analysis Of Legal Argumentation Research Articles

Judicial Lawfare: Analysis of Legal Arguments against Abortion Rights in Peruvian Courts

Abstract This article analyzes the puzzling case of Peru, a country highlighted as an example of the internationalization of sexual and reproductive health and rights norms through supranational litigation, but where these legal victories have not prompted an expansion of abortion rights. Through the analysis of three judicial cases, with a focus on the legal arguments and strategies, the article argues that two features of the abortion legal mobilization in Peru are key to understand the lack of more positive developments: 1) formalistic feature of Peruvian Courts, that offers little space toward recognizing additional grounds for abortion, as has been the case in other Latin American countries; 2) innovative capacity of anti-abortion legal mobilization, that have forced to create a tacit alliance between the movement toward the recognition of abortion rights and the State, to defend the (restricted) abortion rights in the country.

Interpreting legal arguments. Insights from the first ICC trial

Abstract The terminological problems and pragmatic challenges interpreters regularly face in courts are often posed by judges’ and lawyers’ recourse to argument strategies. However, the analysis of legal argumentation in courtroom interaction has been substantially overlooked in interpreting scholarly settings. Against this background, the paper outlines the preliminary findings of the ArgIntIus project, bridging argumentation theory and court interpreting studies. The project is based on a parallel corpus of selected trials at the International Criminal Court (ICC); building on the assumption that familiarity with the argumentative routines of legal experts plays a crucial role in providing quality interpreting services, the project aims at detecting recurring argument strategies used in ICC trials and analysing their renditions by experienced interpreters, with a view to promoting the quest for pragmatic equivalence in interpreter-mediated courtroom interaction. The paper focuses on the trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and draws on argumentation theory to analyse judicial discourse. The findings suggest that specific argument strategies are recurrently implemented by ICC lawyers; particularly, the relativity of legal arguments stands out, as their use often varies depending on whether the arguer is a member of the prosecution or the defence team. Notably, legal arguments are regularly reproduced by ICC interpreters who, thus, appear to be aware of the pragmatic implications of legal argumentation. A number of argument strategies and their respective interpretations are discussed, together with the training implications of the research project and the contribution of argumentation theory to court interpreting studies.

Sec v Goldman Sachs and the New Wave of (Asset-Backed) Securities Litigation. What are the Arguments? What is at Stake?

In the wake of the financial crisis a new wave of litigation looms. This paper presents an “aloof” analysis of legal arguments involved in securitisation cases. First, it identifies the relevant facts. Second, it focuses on key legal liability elements for fraudulent/negligent statements in securitisation litigation. In so doing, it identifies the aspects where public debate and legal argument differ, and where they concur; and it takes a broad view on the implications of tipping the balance oneway or the other. It is concluded that the currentwave of litigation has consequences for the long-term future of the financial industry.

‘I Am One of the People’: A Survey and Analysis of Legal Arguments on Woman-Led Prayer in Islam

This paper, written five years after the Wadud prayer, presents a survey and analysis of the various responses to female led mixed-gender congregational prayers as well as a legal argument for its default permissibility. We show that, in interpreting the Hadiths on woman-led prayer, Sunni schools of law hold a range of opinions on its permissibility. We discuss how Muslim jurists consider historical needs in their rulings, the role of female modesty in this debate, and the nature of juristic consensus. We present our own argument that unrestricted female prayer leadership is legal by default rather than an innovation as many critics have charged. Finally, we set out our own different positions on the propriety of Muslim women asserting their inclusion in the current situation.

SEC v Goldman Sachs and the new wave of (asset-backed) securities litigation. What are the arguments? What is at stake?

In the wake of the financial crisis a new wave of litigation looms. This paper presents an “aloof” analysis of legal arguments involved in securitisation cases. First, it identifies the relevant facts. Second, it focuses on key legal liability elements for fraudulent/negligent statements in securitisation litigation. In so doing, it identifies the aspects where public debate and legal argument differ, and where they concur; and it takes a broad view on the implications of tipping the balance one way or the other. It is concluded that the current wave of litigation has consequences for the long-term future of the financial industry.

“I am one of the People”: A Survey and Analysis of Legal Arguments on Woman-Led Prayer in Islam

For Muslims, prayer leadership is necessary to fulfill the confirmed sunnah of congregational prayer, as well as the obligatory Friday sermon and prayer. The majority of jurists consider the role of imam to be better than any other duty associated with the prayer including that of the muezzin.In New York City on March 18, 2005 Dr. Amina Wadud shocked the Muslim world when she led a mixed-gender congregation in the Friday prayer. The Friday congregational prayer is at the center of Muslim religiosity. On Friday mid-day, Muslims come together as a community and turn collectively toward God. The form of the prayer affirms the community's identity; Muslims pray as brothers and sisters equal before God. They stand in straight lines, shoulder to shoulder. No one has a reserved spot. The rich stand next to the poor.

Defence and self-defence a structural analysis of legal argumentation

Defence and self-defence a structural analysis of legal argumentation

Media Accountability for Real-Life Violence: A Case of Negligence or Free Speech?

VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article by Dee was to provide a comprehensive review of U.S. Court decisions relating to cases in which a child or young adult was victim of violence that was held to have been caused by mass media presentations to public of material that induced violent acts which had fatal or serious health consequences for plaintiffs in a broad range of court cases. METHODOLOGY: This article was a non-experimental review of literature. Beginning in early 1970s and continuing to present, there has been a periodic filing of suits against broadcasters, movie producers, rock musicians, game designers, and publishers for negligence specified in claims that children or adult plaintiffs (or parents of deceased children) had been killed or injured as a result of material instigated by a movie, an article, a recording, or a particular broadcast. In all, fifteen cases were summarized and each focused on an analysis of legal arguments used in case. The first six cases described situations wherein a party was harmed by a third party whose dangerous conduct was alleged to have been triggered by a media presentation. The subsequent nine cases analyzed cases where children or teenagers injured or killed themselves while acting out something they had purportedly read about, heard, seen on television, or played out during a game. The author provided legal definitions of negligence and incitement. Specifically, negligence was held to be the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances. It was noted that tort law governs court decisions on negligence and defendants are negligent if their conduct posed, unreasonable risks to others, as determined by judges or juries. With regard to incitement however, there has been some ambiguity as it was not defined in Constitution or any statute book. Incitement as a definition implied a significant probability of danger being intended by perpetrator. The legal charge of incitement had roots in a series of Supreme Court decisions interpreting First Amendment, and has come to be seen, along with libel, slander, perjury, obscenity, and fighting words, as an exception to First Amendment protections otherwise afforded as free speech and free press. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: The overall review suggested that courts hesitate to hold media organizations accountable for inciting violent acts of specific individuals. Increases in number of cases coming to courts in 1980s were considered by author to be partly attributable to development of common law through test cases as well as an increased turning of individuals to courts for redress of grievances against media. Especially noteworthy was that all test cases involved children or young adults. The author noted that cases of media-incited violence among adults have been difficult to prove in aggregate, however children have provided a common grounds for rallying against social fears about harmful effects of media. For future, author concluded that a testing of media accountability may be part of a series of attempts to find direct and remediable solutions to problems of increased violence in our society. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by Center for Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of University of Colorado) KW - Literature Review KW - 1970s KW - 1980s KW - Media Coverage KW - Media Accountability KW - Media Violence Effects KW - Violence Causes KW - Victimization Causes KW - Case Studies KW - Criminal Justice System KW - Correctional Decision Making KW - Child Victim KW - Juvenile Victim KW - Adult Victim KW - Film Violence KW - Music Violence KW - Television Violence KW - Court Response KW - Justice System Response