Repository of colleges and higher education institutions

Show document
A+ | A- | Help | SLO | ENG

Title:Dialektična metoda in njena uporaba pri reševanju pravnih primerov : doktorska disertacija
Authors:ID Tomažič, Luka Martin (Author)
ID Strahovnik, Vojko (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf DR_Tomazic_Luka_Martin_i2017.pdf (1,88 MB)
MD5: 39B231609C9E8092ABD8C337B235C166
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Dissertation
Typology:2.08 - Doctoral Dissertation
Organization:EVRO-PF - Nova Univerza - European Faculty of Law
Abstract:Avtorjeva raziskava je osredotočena na razvoj dialektičnega modela argumentacije v pravu, ki ima idejno osnovo v Heglovi in sholastični dialektiki. Reševanje kompleksnih pravnih primerov je v okviru te metode v svojem bistvu vrednostno tehtanje, ki poteka kot dialektično soočanje potencialnih argumentov, ki skozi intelektualno dejavnost razlagalca privede do sinteze, se pravi do rešitve pravnega primera.Pri tem avtor sledi pojmovanju t.i. amsterdamske, pragma-dialektične,šole argumentacije, kidialektiko, logiko in retoriko razume kot medsebojno povezane pojmovne kategorije, ki jih je, v kontekstu pravniškega razlogovanja, smiselno preučevati hkratno. Medtem ko se pragma-dialektiki ukvarjajo zlasti z rekonstrukcijo in analizo argumentacije, kot poteka v pravni praksi, pa avtorja zanima razvoj modela, ki bo praktično uporaben in ne bo omogočal zgolj rekonstrukcije in analize, temveč tudi oblikovanje argumentacije, s čimer bo lahko v pomoč tudi praktikom, zlasti sodnikom in odvetnikom.Hkrati avtor, v okviru razvoja dialektične metode, proučuje pravilnost stališča, da je pravniško sklepanje v mnogih kompleksnih primerih entimemsko in da ne poteka v obliki običajnega silogizma. Klasična pravna teorija pravniško razlogovanje namreč pojmuje kot silogistično, avtor pa meni, da je pravilneje, da ga v mnogih kompleksnih primerih, v katerih obstaja potreba po vrednostnem tehtanju, pojmujemo kot entimemskega, saj pri sklepanju pogosto obstajajo skrite premise. Pri tem sledi Waltonovi definiciji in kot entimem pojmuje vsako sklepanje, ki ima eno ali več premis, ki niso eksplicitno navedene, ampak so potrebne, da bi lahko iz besedila izluščili celotno sklepanje.
Keywords:reševanje kompleksnih pravnih primerov, hegeljanska dialektika, kvalitativni preskok
Place of publishing:Ljubljana
Place of performance:Ljubljana
Publisher:[L. Martin Tomažič]
Year of publishing:2017
Year of performance:2017
Number of pages:IV, [2], 214 str.
PID:20.500.12556/ReVIS-4556 New window
COBISS.SI-ID:2053177526 New window
UDC:340.132.6:130.123.1(043.2)
Note:Doktorska disertacija 3. stopnje bolonjskega študija;
Publication date in ReVIS:06.08.2018
Views:3803
Downloads:245
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
:
Copy citation
  
Share:Bookmark and Share


Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:Slovenian
Abstract:Author's research is focused on development of a dialectical model of legal argumentation, which has its conceptual basis in hegelian and sholastic dialectics. Solving complex legal problems is namely at its core a weighing of values, which takes place as a dialectical confrontation of potential arguments, which lead to the synthesis, i.e. to the solution to a legal problem, through the intellectual activity of the interpreter. In doing so the author follows the conceptions of the so called Amsterdam, pragma-dialectic school of argumentation, in the sense that dialectic, logic and rhetoric are interrelated conceptual categories that should be, in the context of legal reasoning, examined simultaneously. While pragma-dialectics deals especially with the reconstruction and analysis of argumentation, as it occurs in legal practice, the author is interested in developing a model, which will be practically useful and will not enable just reconstruction, but also construction of argumentation, which will make it helpful also to the practicioners, especially judges and attorneys. At the same time author, in the context of developing the dialectical method, examines the correctness of the standpoint that legal reasoning is at its core enthymemic and not in the form of a traditional syllogism. Classical legal theory conceives of legal reasoning as syllogistic, but the author claims that it is more correct to conceive of legal reasoning as enthymemic, since often hidden premises exist. In doing so, he adheres to Walton's definition and regards as an enthymeme every reasoning, which has one or more premises, which are not explicitly stated, but are however necessary to be able to discern the complete reasoning from the text.
Keywords:Argumentacija


Back