The workshop welcomes the addresses of the following issues:
- possible accounts of the very concept of coherence in judicial reasoning: the relation between coherence and consistency; coherence as dimensional or binary concept; constraint satisfaction theory of coherence and competing proposals; formal versus substantive accounts of coherence; coherence as a legal concept or as a meta-legal concept.
- types of (in)coherence relations within judicial discourse concerning norms. Relations of support and attack between legal arguments, norms, principles, value judgments and other types of statements employed in legal discourse. The concept of coherence in theory construction in case-based reasoning. The comparison of relevant argumentative schemes employed by judges in civil law countries and common law countries.
- the role of the supreme courts in establishing coherence in legal system (in particular, in the cases of legislative errors). Argumentative schemes employed in judicial review cases performed by the US Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union.
- coherence of legal norms and coherence of legal concepts. Legal reasoning and legal conceptual schemes. Conceptual change in the field of law. The relations between different legal conceptual systems. Conceptual frameworks developed by the judiciary as opposed to conceptual frameworks developed by legal doctrine.
- autonomy of theories of judicial reasoning versus their integration with political, ethical, economic and other theories. The role of these ‘external’ theories and their conceptual frameworks in legal reasoning, in particular in doctrinal and judicial reasoning.
- axiological coherence of legal system developed by the judiciary as a problem of jurisprudence. Formal models for value-based argumentation in reasoning with cases and with rules.
- the role of coherence in reasoning concerning facts & evidence. The relation between the framework of legal procedures and argumentative schemes employed in this reasoning. The comparison between explanatory reasoning in the field of questions of law and questions of fact.
April 27 – Paper submission deadline
May 15 – Notice of acceptance deadline
May 30 – Paper camera-ready deadline
June 10 – Main event
Structure of Papers
Title, name of the author, e-mail, keywords, abstract (max. 1500 characters incl. spaces) SHOULD NOT BE INSERTED IN THE TEXT, DUE TO BLIND REVIEW PROCESS. THERE ARE SUITABLE SPACES TO ENTER THEM IN EASY CHAIR SYSTEM. The text should have max. 30 000 characters incl. spaces. It should be submitted in .doc, .rtf, .docx or .pdf format.
Structure of citations
Citations in accordance with AGPS Style Guide 5th ed. (Harvard standard), examples:
- book, one author: Berkman, R. I. 1994, Find It Fast: How to Uncover Expert Information on Any Subject, HarperPerennial, New York.
- book, multiple authors: Cheek, J., Doskatsch, I., Hill, P. & Walsh, L. 1995, Finding Out: Information Literacy For the 21st century, MacMillan Education Australia, South Melbourne.
- article: Huffman, L. M. 1996, ‘Processing Whey Protein for Use as a Food Ingredient’, Food Technology, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 49-52.
- proceedings contribution: Bernstein, D. 1995, ‘Transportation Planning’ in The Civil Engineering Handbook, ed. W.F.Chen, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
- use of automatic styles, automatic text and bold characters should be omitted
- use of any special forms of formatting, pictures, graphs, etc. should be consulted
- only automatic footnotes should be used for notes, citations, etc.
- blank lines should be used only to divide chapters (not paragraphs)
- first words of paragraphs should not be indented
- chapters and subchapters should be numbered as follows: “5.7 Partial Conclusions”
Please upload your papers using the EasyChair submission platform.