Criteria for Evaluating Constitutional Judicial Argumentation

One of the key directions in the development of the theory of constitutional judicial argumentation is the development of tools that can help to assess the quality of constitutional judicial argumentation and its effectiveness. Since argumentation serves a functional role in relation to the activities it supports, it is crucial to consider the purpose and features of constitutional norm control in this process. The paper examines the factors that necessitate the identification of specific criteria for evaluating constitutional judicial argumentation. Using the premise that argumentation should strengthen constitutional normativity, the author formulates methodological requirements for the process of forming constitutional discourse and identifies the following criteria for evaluating constitutional judicial argumentation: constitutional justification of assertions regarding the constitutionally appropriate; accuracy in diagnosing the current legal regulation; adequacy in describing and understanding the social context; acceptability of arguments for constitutional discourse; and completeness (exhaustiveness) of the argumentation. The study demonstrates that evaluation criteria for argumentation that take into account the specifics of constitutional norm control significantly reduce the risk of argumentative errors, as well as allowfor the identification of manipulations and incorrect argumentation, giving an opportunity to respond to them. This is particularly important given that in constitutional discourse, each thesis and the arguments presented in its support influence the definition of the boundaries of what is constitutionally appropriate, permissible, and prohibited.

1. Alexy R. A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.

2. Benjamin SM, Renberg KM. The Paradoxical Impact of Scalia’s Campaign against Legislative History. Cornell Law Review. 2019;105:1023-1092.

3. Blokhin PD. Justification by Analogy in Constitutional and Legal Disputes. In: Lysanyuk EN (ed.). Argumentation in Law and Morality. St. Petersburg: Alef-Press Publ. 2018. (In Russ.).

4. Blokhin PD. Multiplication of Entities: The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation’s Reference to International (Foreign) Judicial Practice. Herald of Enforcement Procedure. 2021;3:6-13. (In Russ.).

5. Breyer S. On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes. Southern California Law Review. 1992;61:845-867.

6. Bryushinkin VN. The advantages and disadvantages of the logical approach to the argumentation modelling. IKBFU’s Vestnik. Series: Humanities and social science. 2010;12:96-105. (In Russ.).

7. Carro JL, Brann AR. The U. S. Supreme Court and the Use of Legislative Histories: A Statistical Analysis. Jurimetrics. 1982;22(3):294-306.

8. Chirninov AM. «Great Haste Makes Great Waste»: The Constitutional Nature of the Mechanism of Removal of a Member of a District Electoral Commission. Constitutional and Municipal Law. 2024;1:33-39. (In Russ.).

9. Chirninov AM. «Is silence golden?»: the constitutionality of the refusal of a person who has entered into a pre-trial cooperation agreement to answer questions from the defense. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie [Comparative Constitutional Review]. 2023;1(152):172-180. (In Russ.).

10. Chirninov AM. Searching for relevant arguments: the structure of constitutional argumentation. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie [Comparative Constitutional Review]. 2022;3(148):33-61. (In Russ.).

11. Chirninov AM. The Concept and Properties of Constitutional Judicial Evidence (Case studies of Russia and the USA). In: Krylatova IYu, Kuznetsova SS, Nechkin AV et al. Studies in Comparative Constitutional Law: A Collective Monograph in Honor of Professor M. S. Salikov’s Anniversary. Yekaterinburg: IMC UPI Publ.; 2022. (In Russ.).

12. Chirninov AM. The fine is [not] overpaid: coherence of legal rules as a constitutional value (using as example of the law of administrative offences). Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie [Comparative Constitutional Review]. 2022;5:142-151. (In Russ.).

13. Chirninov AM. The impact of procedural aspects of constitutional control upon the style of argumentation: comparative research. Law and Politics. 2020;9:33-46. (In Russ.).

14. Dolzhikov AV. Manuscripts don’t burn»: unwritten rights in constitutional adjudication. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie [Comparative Constitutional Review]. 2014;1(98):120-137. (In Russ.).

15. Eemeren FH. van, Grootendorst R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

16. Gadzhiev GA, Blokhin PD. On the functional purpose of part 2 of article 74 of the law on the constitutional court of the Russian federation and its relationship with the requirement to exhaust judicial remedies. Journal of Constitutional Justice. 2022;5:1 6. (In Russ.).

17. Hahn U, Harris AJL, Corner A. Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration. Informal Logic. 2009;29(4):337-367.

18. Huhn W. Five Types of Legal Argument. 3rd ed. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press; 2014. Ivlev YuV. Fundamentals of the Logical Theory of Argumentation. Logical Investigations. 2003;10:50-60. (In Russ.).

19. Jakab A. Judicial Reasoning in Constitutional Courts: A European Perspective. German Law Journal. 2013;14(8):1215-1275.

20. Johnson SL. Winning Debayes. A Guide to Debating in the style of the world universities debating championships. New York; London; Amsterdam: IDEA Publ.; 2012. (In Russ.).

21. Krasnov MA. Interpretations of the constitution as its actual amendments. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie [Comparative Constitutional Review]. 2016;1(110):77-91. (In Russ.).

22. Kutafin OE. Gaps, Analogy, and Defects in Constitutional Law. Lex russica. 2007;66(4):610-622. (In Russ.).

23. Lisanyuk EN. Logical-Cognitive Theory of Argumentation. Dr. Sci. (Philosophy). St. Petersburg, 2015.

24. Lisanyuk EN. Search for and Selection of Dispute Resolution in Legal Arguments. In: Markin VI (ed.). 12th Smirnov Readings: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, Moscow, June 24–26, 2021. Moscow: Russian Society for the History and Philosophy of Science Publ.; 2021.

25. MacCormick N. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

26. Migunov AI. The Relationship between Rhetorical and Argumentative Aspects of Discourse. RACIO.ru. 2010;4:3- 28. (In Russ.).

27. Polityuk AP. The rhetorical turn in argumentation theory. IKBFU’s Vestnik. Series: Humanities and social science. 2013;12:112-119. (In Russ.).

28. Sajo A, Uitz R. The Constitution of Freedom: An Introduction to Legal Constitutionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. Shaw K. Friends of the Court: Evaluating the Supreme Court’s Amicus Invitations. Cornell Law Review. 2016:101(6):1533-1596.

29. Sibitskiy VA. Prospects of the institute of expert opinion in constitutional proceedings in the light of new legal regulation. Journal of Constitutional Justice. 2022;3:1-11. (In Russ.).

30. Walton D. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

31. Walton D. Methods of Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2013.