Answer to “How to Evaluate Judicial Argumentation” by Manuel Atienza

Abstract

In this paper the author examines Manuel Atienza’s ideas on how to evaluate judicial argumentation. One of the highlights of his work is the assertion that in every area of the law the marking criteria are different. The critique of this paper focuses on denying that the criteria used for the judiciary are different from the criteria governing lawyers’ arguments. While the arguments of lawyers seek persuasion to succeed, they need to fulfill the standards used by judges to evaluate them. The distinction apparently does hold in relation to the legislative’s argumentation because in this area arguments do not depend on the views or criteria of the judges insofar as the legislator himself is an authority, in his own sphere, in matters of interpretation of laws and the constitution.