Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Confrontation of argumentation premises: weighing of premises in three difficult cases reviewed by colombian constitutional court
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Obando, Pedro Antonio García Román, Javier Orlando Aguirre Mantilla, Ana Patricia Pabón |
| Copyright Year | 2009 |
| Abstract | This article evaluates argumentation premises in three sentenced pronounced by Colombian Constitutional Court. From the argumentation theory, it should be stated the way how argumentation premises are faced and the way how such premises are selected for solving some “tutela” cases. It is particularly interesting to show how confrontation of different premises arises; that is, those related to facts confronted to those related to definitions and presumptions. The idea of “auditorio” is evaluated from cases proposed for indicating the concept of “auditorio” referred to in these sentences. This research is expected to show that Perelman’s argumentation theory is a tool for understanding judicial decisions. This theory also allows making an analysis of what is commonly called a “difficult case. |
| Starting Page | 61 |
| Ending Page | 76 |
| Page Count | 16 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Volume Number | 8 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://revistas.udem.edu.co/index.php/opinion/article/download/762/704 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/945/94511749005.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |