Legal interpretation

 

Macagno, F., Walton, D. (2017). Arguments of statutory interpretation and argumentation schemes. International Journal of Legal Discourse 2(1): 47–83

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., Walton, D. & Sartor, G. (2018). Pragmatic maxims and presumptions in legal interpretation. Law and Philosophy. 37 (1): 69–115. 10.1007/s10982-017-9306-4.

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.

 

Macagno, F. (2016). Defining Marriage: Classification, Interpretation, and Definitional Disputes. Informal Logic, 36 (3):  309-332.

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.

 

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. (2010). Dialectical and heuristic arguments: presumptions and burden of proof. In C. Reed and C. W. Tindale (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument (pp. 45-57). London: College Publications.

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. Parte II. 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.