Abstract
The question as to whether or not an argument isadditional may be decisive in the evaluation ofjudicial decisions. It is, however, often difficult todistinguish between arguments that are additional(obiter dicta) and arguments that are not (ratio decidendi). This paper will focus on twoproblems concerning this distinction: thecharacterization of obiter dicta and theiridentification. A pragma-dialectical approach toargumentation will be the framework in which theseproblems will be addressed. Its insights intodialogical aspects of argumentation will be used tocharacterize obiter dicta. And its assessment oflinguistic clues for the recognition of argumentationstructures will be used for the identification ofobiter dicta. Problems related to the identificationof obiter dicta will be illustrated through ananalysis of decisions in which the expressions anyway, for that matter and if onlybecause are considered as indicative of obiter dicta.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asser, W. D. H. and Doek, J. E. et al. 1994. Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (loose-leaf system). Kluwer, Deventer
Eemeren, F. H. van and Grootendorst, R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Franx, J. K. 1993. Motivering van de conclusie OM bij de Hoge Raad. In Gemotiveerd Gehuldigd. Opstellen Aangeboden aan Mr C.D.van Boeschoten. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle, pp. 121–131.
Hollander, L. 1983. Cassatie (Suppl. 1987). Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle.
Knoop, S. W. and Krans, H. 1992. Model of legal reasoning in appellate court decisions. In H. J. Snijders and M. Ynzonides (eds.), Role and Organization of Judges and Lawyers in Contemporary Societies. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer/Boston, pp. 155–173.
Plug, H. J. 1994. Reconstructing complex argumentation in judicial decisions. In Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics, International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat), Amsterdam, pp. 246–253.
Plug, H. J. 1995. The rational reconstruction of additional considerations in judicial decisions. In Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Special Fields and Cases. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. IV. International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat), Amsterdam, pp. 61–73.
Plug, H. J. 1996. Complex argumentation in judicial decisions. analysing conflicting arguments’. In Dov M. Gabbay and Hans Jürgen Ohlbach (eds.), Practical Reasoning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, Bonn, pp. 464–480.
Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. 1996. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4(3/4), 331–368.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 1992. Analysing Complex Argumentation; the Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Sicsat (proefschrift Amsterdam UvA), Amsterdam.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F 1995. ‘Anyway’ and ‘even’ as indicators of argumentative structure. In Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Reconstruction and Application. Proceedings of the Third ISSAConference on Argumentation, Vol. III. International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat), Amsterdam, pp. 183–192.
Veegens, D. J. 1989. Cassatie in Burgerlijke Zaken. (3e dr. revised by E. Korthals Altes and H. A. Groen). Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle.
Winters, B. 1992. De Procedure na Cassatie en Verwijzing in Civiele Zaken. TjeenkWillink, Zwolle.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Plug, J. Indicators of obiter dicta. A pragma-dialectical analysis of textual clues for the reconstruction of legal argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8, 189–203 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008327715564
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008327715564