LEGAL METHODOLOGY AS A THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION: FOUNDATIONS IN JUSTIFICATION AND RATIONAL DECISION-MAKING

APA full citation: Filho, C. I. (2024, November 18). Legal Methodology as a Theory of Argumentation: Foundations in Justification and Rational Decision-Making. EBS I&D Centre. https://www.ebscentre.org/law-and-politicalscience/

Abstract

Legal methodology is often perceived as an instrumental tool in guiding legal interpretation, but its core value extends beyond procedural applications, serving as a foundational theory of argumentation. This article examines the role of legal methodology as a structured system that not only aims to identify and refute incorrect interpretations but also to promote the rationalization and justification of legal decisions. It evaluates how methodology underpins rational verifiability, distinguishing defensible judgments from erroneous ones through falsifiability. Furthermore, the discussion encompasses the synthesis of reasoned and creative solutions in complex cases, highlighting the necessity of methodological rigor to achieve legally sound and convincing outcomes. The analysis draws on Möllers' (2020) seminal insights on legal methods, elucidating that legal decisions—unlike mathematical solutions—often lack a single "correct" answer. Nevertheless, methodology provides a framework to separate valid interpretations from errors and fosters discursive exploration, resulting in judicious decisions that serve the legal system's legitimacy and integrity.

Keywords: Legal methodology, theory of argumentation, rational verification, legal interpretation, decision-making, justification, refutability.

Article - Legal Methodology as a Theory of Argumentation.pdf

Download PDF • 229KB

---

Disclaimer

This article presents an analysis of legal methodology as a theory of argumentation, focusing on rational decision-making and justification within the legal process. While drawing from contemporary perspectives, including Thomas J. Möllers' exploration of legal methods (2020), this analysis also acknowledges the foundational theories of earlier legal scholars, particularly those of Fredrick Karl von Savigny. Savigny's seminal work, System of the Modern Roman Law (Savigny & Holloway, 1867), established the foundational interpretive framework—grammatical, logical, historical, and systematic—that continues to influence contemporary legal reasoning.

Additionally, the theoretical underpinnings of legal methodology align with insights from MacCormick and Summers' (1991) Interpreting Statutes, which examines interpretative principles across legal systems and highlights the balance of logical and contextual analysis in judicial decision-making. This analysis also aligns with Alexy's (1989) theory of legal argumentation, which emphasizes the rationality and justifiability of legal discourse through a structured argumentation framework. Lastly, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's (1969) The New Rhetoric provides valuable context on the persuasive elements essential to legal argumentation, enhancing the discussion of how legal methodology supports credible and compelling judicial decisions.

By integrating these perspectives, the article underscores the continuity and evolution of legal methodology, affirming that while contemporary insights advance our understanding, they are built upon enduring interpretative canons and argumentation principles. For readers seeking a deeper understanding of these foundational theories, Savigny's original work remains available in its English translation (System of the Modern Roman Law, Madras: J. Higginbotham, 1867), accessible here.

_____________________________________________________

1. Introduction: Legal Methodology as a Theory of Argumentation

Legal methodology is more than a procedural guideline for interpreting and applying legal texts. At its core, it embodies a theory of argumentation that justifies legal decisions within a rational framework, aiming to verify, refute, or convincingly support judicial outcomes. Möllers (2020) contends that when legal decisions must be justified, legal methodology transcends pure textual interpretation to act as a system of argumentation designed to enhance legitimacy in legal reasoning (Möllers, 2020, p. 52). This argumentation framework does not necessarily deliver a single correct answer—as mathematical theories might—but instead prioritizes the selection of the most convincing and rationally sound decision among plausible alternatives.

This article explores how legal methodology functions as an argumentation theory by addressing three key objectives: the refutation of incorrect decisions, the rationalization of justifiable results, and the synthesis of the most convincing outcomes in complex cases. Through examining these functions, we can better understand how legal methodology reinforces the legitimacy and credibility of judicial decisions.

2. The Purpose of the Theory of Argumentation in Legal Methodology

The theory of argumentation within legal methodology serves to verify judicial decisions' rational foundations, ensuring they align with legal standards and reasoning processes. As Möllers (2020) notes, the goal is not merely to interpret legal texts but to validate decisions through systematic and verifiable argumentation techniques. This section outlines the primary purposes of legal methodology as a theory of argumentation:

2.1 Refutability of Incorrect Approaches

Legal questions rarely possess a singular "correct" answer. However, it is possible to identify interpretations that fall outside the realm of justifiability. Legal methodology aids in filtering out these interpretations by offering criteria to determine which interpretations are unjustifiable or erroneous. The application of legal principles without necessary preconditions or improper analogy use, for instance, constitutes an error in law. Such methodological criteria allow legal professionals to discern and exclude interpretations that do not conform to the structured requirements of legal reasoning (Möllers, 2020, p. 175).

This falsifiability function within legal methodology resembles the scientific method, wherein a hypothesis must withstand scrutiny and refutation to be considered credible. By disallowing specific interpretations that lack a foundational basis, legal methodology prevents arbitrary or biased decision-making, promoting rationality and consistency in the judicial process.

2.2 Rationalizing Justifiable Results

The quest for rational justifiability in legal decisions involves more than a rigid adherence to legal texts. Often, legal concepts may appear to offer interpretative flexibility, leading to the misconception that all interpretations are equally valid. Möllers (2020) challenges this view by suggesting that arguments have varying degrees of persuasiveness, necessitating careful selection of the most robust interpretative criteria. Some arguments possess purely formal appeal, which may lack depth, while others hold substantial persuasive power by addressing the essence of legal and moral principles relevant to the case (Möllers, 2020, p. 72).

Rationalization in legal methodology thus entails assessing the strength of arguments and ensuring that the selected interpretation is not arbitrary but substantiated by weighty reasoning. This approach not only supports legal consistency but also ensures that decisions resonate with broader principles of justice and fairness, contributing to the legal system's credibility.

2.3 Openness, Creativity, and Synthesis for Convincing Solutions

In many legal cases, especially complex ones, merely reaching a "justifiable" decision may not suffice; the decision must also be convincing. Legal methodology thus encourages an openness to alternative interpretations, fostering creativity and synthesis as integral parts of the argumentation process. Complex cases often cannot be resolved solely through literal or logical interpretation and require nuanced evaluations of various legal values and interests (Möllers, 2020, p. 76).

Through synthesizing different interpretative approaches, legal professionals can achieve decisions that not only comply with legal standards but also address the underlying issues more effectively. This synthesis process involves extensive reasoning and argumentation, making methodology an indispensable tool for cases involving novel issues or unprecedented legal dilemmas.

3. Legal Methodology as a Theory of Legitimacy and Justification

The legitimacy of judicial decisions hinges on a transparent methodology that demonstrates how the conclusion aligns with rational legal reasoning. Möllers (2020) illustrates this by referencing complex scenarios where a clear-cut solution may not exist, but discourse and methodological rigor enable a judicious outcome that balances competing interests. For instance, in cases like the mother-and-child scenario, the interpretation requires an examination beyond the textual law, considering ethical and situational factors (Möllers, 2020, p. 80).

Legal methodology, as a theory of legitimacy, underpins judicial training, encouraging practitioners to formulate thesis, antithesis, and synthesis arguments in a structured manner. This approach not only aids in producing convincing legal solutions but also fosters academic and professional environments that emphasize critical thinking, reasoned justification, and continuous refinement of legal interpretation.

4. Conclusion

Legal methodology, as conceptualized by Möllers (2020), operates as a theory of argumentation that legitimizes legal decisions through structured, verifiable reasoning. While legal judgments lack the precision of mathematical proofs, methodology provides a framework for distinguishing justifiable interpretations from erroneous ones, rationalizing decisions, and fostering convincing outcomes through rigorous discourse. By adhering to methodological principles, legal practitioners and scholars contribute to a rational and credible legal system that upholds the rule of law, balances interpretative flexibility, and ensures legitimacy in judicial decision-making.

Carlos I. Filho

References

Alexy, R. (1989). A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MacCormick, N., & Summers, R. S. (Eds.). (1991). Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.

Möllers, T. M. J. (2020). Legal Methods. Oxford, England: Beck/Hart Publishing.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Savigny, F. Karl von, & Holloway, W. (Trans.) (1867). System of the Modern Roman Law. Madras: J. Higginbotham. Available at Google Books.