A Theory of Juristic Argumentation

The subject of this study concerns the central problem of juristic methodology. It is possible to formulate in the question whether jurisprudence is equipped with a commonly accepted canon that makes possible a rationally and inter-subjectively verifiable scrutiny.

Consensus today for the most part exists only in the negative; namely, that juristic decisions are not only controlled by law, precedent, doctrine and conventional methodology, but also in all reasonably problematic cases by »non-juridical« or moral judgments.