Crea sito

Legal interpretation

Arguments of interpretation

Walton, D., Sartor, G., & Macagno, F. (2016). An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 24, 1: 51-91.

Macagno, F. (2015). Arguments of interpretation and argumentation schemes. In: M. Manzin, F. Puppo. S. Tomasi (eds.), Studies on Argumentation and Legal Philosophy. Further Steps Towards a Pluralistic Approach (pp. 51-80). Napoli: Editoriale scientifica.

Walton, D., Macagno, F., Sartor, G.  (2014). Interpretative Argumentation Schemes. In Hoekstra, R.  (ed.), Legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2014) (pp. 21-22), Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Sartor, G., Walton, D., Macagno, F., Rotolo, A. (2014). Argumentation Schemes for Statutory Interpretation: A Logical Analysis. In Hoekstra, R.  (ed.), Legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2014) (pp. 11-20), Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Macagno, F.,  D. Walton & G. Sartor. (2012). Argumentation Schemes for Statutory Interpretation. In Araszkiewicz, M., Myska, M., Smejkalova, T., Savelka, J., & Skop, M. (eds.) International Conference on Alternative Methods of Argumentation in Law (Brno 25 October 2012) (pp. 63-75). Brno: Masarykova Univ.

Pragmatics and legal interpretation

Macagno, F. (2016). Reporting and Interpreting Intentions in Defamation Law. In Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer, and Franco Lo Piparo (eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics (pp. 593-619). Cham: Springer.

 

Definitions

Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2015). The Importance and Trickiness of Definition Strategies in Legal and Political Argumentation. Journal of Politics and Law 8(1): 137-148.

Macagno, F., & Damele, G. (2015). The Hidden Acts of Definition in Law - Statutory Definitions and Burden of Persuasion. In M. Araszkiewicz & K. Pleszka (Eds.), Logic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking (pp. 225–251). Cham: Springer.

Macagno F., (2010). Definitions in law. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 2: 199-217.

 

Argumentative strategies in law

Macagno, F. & G. Damele (2012). The dialogical force of implicit premises. Presumptions in legal enthymemes. In Araszkiewicz, M., Myska, M., Smejkalova, T., Savelka, J., & Skop, M. (eds.) International Conference on Alternative Methods of Argumentation in Law (Brno 25 October 2012) (pp. 41-53). Brno: Masarykova Univ. 

Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2012). Character Attacks as Complex Strategies of Legal Argumentation. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse 2 (3): 1-58. 

Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2012). Presumptions in legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 25 (3): 271–300.

Macagno F., Walton D. (2010). Dichotomies and Oppositions in Legal Argumentation. Ratio Juris 23: 229-257.

Walton D., Macagno F., (2006). Common knowledge in legal reasoning about evidence. International Commentary on Evidence 53 (1), 1

Papers in Italian

Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2010). Ragionare Per Dicotomie - Struttura Argomentativa e Usi nel Common Law. Ars  Interpretandi 15: 167-187.

Macagno, F. & Puppo, F. (2013). Il ragionamento per dicotomie nella strategia difensiva. Cultura e diritti 3: 63-73.

Macagno, F. & Puppo, F. (2013). Argomentare in processo. Il "ragionamento per dicotomie" nella strategia difensiva. Cultura e diritti 2: 47-59.