2004
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

A complaint about the lack of impartiality of a judge may be filed on the grounds of the judge’s verbal behaviour. Such a complaint may result in the disqualification of the judge. In this paper, criticism on the verbal behaviour of the judge will be discussed from an argumentative perspective. From this perspective, the disqualification procedure may be considered a sub-discussion that relates to the initial legal dispute. I will examine what role complaints about the verbal behaviour of the judge can play in the argumentation of a party who seeks the judge’s disqualification. Therefore, I will analyse the structuring of the argumentation underlying disqualification requests that are based on complaints about the verbal behaviour of the judge. After that I will concentrate on complaints that concern the judge’s use of rhetorical questions. How these complaints about rhetorical questions may be evaluated will be examined and illustrated by an argumentative analysis of a decision by a disqualification panel.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.017.JOSE
2019-04-01
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/41/1/17_TVT2019.1_JOSE.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.017.JOSE&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bauw, E.(2011). Wat te denken van wraking?Ars Aequi, 60(3), 202-206.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Danet, B.(1980). Language in the legal process. Law & Society Review, 14(3), 445-564.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Eemeren, F.H. van(2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eemeren, F.H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F.(2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Feteris, E.T.(1989). Discussieregels in het recht. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van het burgerlijk proces en het strafproces. Dordrecht: Foris.
  6. Frank, J.(1990). You call that a rhetorical question? Forms and functions of rhetorical questions in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(5), 723-738.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Giesen, I, Kristen, F., Enneking, L., & Lent, L. van.(2013). Op weg naar een nieuwe wrakingsprocedure. Meer legitimiteit en minder oneigenlijk gebruik. (Challenging Judges: A New Procedure for Disqualification of Judges in the Netherlands?). Nederlands Juristenblad, 8, 466- 477.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hammerstein, A.(2014). Onpartijdigheid in het geding. Trema, 26(5), 148-154.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ilie, C.(1994). What else can I tell you? A pragmatic study of English rhetorical questions as discursive and argumentative acts. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ilie, C.(1995). The validity of rhetorical questions as arguments in the courtroom. In F.H.van Eemeren, R.Grootendorst, J.A.Blair, & C.A.Willard (Eds.) Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Special Fields and Cases. Volume 5, (pp.73-88). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kloosterhuis, H.T.M.(2002). Van overeenkomstige toepassing: de pragma-dialectische reconstructie van analogie-argumentatie in rechterlijke uitspraken. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Knapen, M.(2012). Advocaten ontdekken wraking. Advocatenblad, nr. 1, 18-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Pascual, E.(2006). Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk, 26(3), 10-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Plug, H.J.(2000). In onderlinge samenhang bezien. De pragma- dialectische reconstructie van complexe argumentatie in rechterlijke uitspraken. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Plug, H.J. (2016a). Administrative judicial decisions as a hybrid argumentative activity type. Informal Logic, 36 (3), 333-348.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Plug, H.J. (2016b). Strategisch manoeuvreren met ‘role shifts’ in bestuursrechtelijke uitspraken: de complexe rol van de rechter. In D.van de Mieroop, L.Buysse, R.Coesemans, & P.Gillaerts (Red.), De macht van de taal: Taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen (pp. 205-218). Leuven/Den Haag: Acco.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Plug, H.J. (in press). The analysis of argumentation underlying complaints about a lack of judicial impartiality. In M.Manzin, F.Puppo & S.Tomasi (Eds.). Studies on Argumentation & Legal Philosophy. Multimodal Argumentation, Pluralism and Images in Law. Trento: Quaderni della Facoltà, Università di Trento.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Rossum, W. van, Tigchelaar, J., & Ippel, P.(2012). Wraking bottom-up. Een empirisch onderzoek. Den Haag: Raad voor de Rechtspraak.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Slot, P.(1993). How can you say that? Rhetorical questions in argumentative texts. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Snoeck Henkemans, A.F.(2006). Manoeuvring strategically with rhetorical questions. In F. H.van Eemeren, J.A.Blair, C.A.Willard & B.Garssen (Eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 1-11). Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Tiersma, P.M.(2000). Legal Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.017.JOSE
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.017.JOSE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error