No description available.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – supervised by the European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) – coexists with other normative (human rights) instruments that have been created at the national, regional, and international level, both by State and non-State actors. The ECHR represents one legal piece of this normative ‘jungle’, characterized by legal ‘fragmentation’. Whereas a lot is said about the negative aspects of this diverse world, this doctoral thesis aims to focus on its positive sides. To support its interpretation and application of the ECHR, the Strasbourg Court makes reference to a diverse range of instruments other than the ECHR, which we call external instruments. The Grand Chamber-case of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey of 12 November 2008 provides a rare overview of the characteristics of this ‘referencing practice’. In this judgment, the Court included a separate heading to specifically explain its interpretative use of international law, discussing the legal basis as well as the type of instruments that it considers relevant. Two major conclusions follow from the Court’s explanations: firstly, it puts external referencing in the light of some rules on interpretation provided in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (particularly in Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT); secondly, it stresses that soft and non-ratified external instruments might equally offer support for (evolutively) interpreting the ECHR. These statements are controversial; the Court has been criticized for misinterpreting the rules of the VCLT, for not well justifying its references as well as for exceeding its powers by incoherently relying on (non-binding) external materials for interpretative purposes.The case of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey left many questions open in respect of the importation of external instruments. There is some confusion about the functions and the weight of (non-binding) external instruments in legal reasoning. In addition, the justificatory arguments developed in this case lack precision and persuasiveness. Addressing these gaps, this study firstly offers an elaborate ‘mapping’ of the usage of external instruments by the ECtHR. For that purpose, all references in each Grand Chamber-case since Demir and Baykara v. Turkey of 12 November 2008 (until the end of 2015) have been analyzed and categorized. Secondly, this work develops arguments to better justify the Court’s practice of using external instruments. Both from a legality and a users’ perspective, this thesis demonstrates how external referencing may (under certain conditions) be a valid method to give meaning to the provisions in the ECHR. The ‘mapping’ of the referencing practice demonstrates that, to support the interpretation and application of the Convention in the ‘law’-section of the decision, external instruments have been invoked by the Grand Chamber in almost 70 percent of the examined cases. This interpretative technique covers a wide variety of instruments, diverging according to their origin as well as to their scope ratione materiae, ratione personae and ratione loci. The legal status of the instruments constitutes an additional root of diversity; the ECtHR imports legal instruments that have been ratified by the Member States, instruments that have not been ratified by some of the Member States and/or by the respondent State, soft instruments created by politically (non-)representative bodies, and finally, case law developed by other (quasi-)judicial bodies. The Grand Chamber references these instruments for different purposes: to dismiss their content, to establish interpretative rules, to support the interpretation of notions and requirements of the Convention, to enable the creation of harmony between the Convention and external legal requirements, or to consider a State’s freedom of manoeuvre when applying the ECHR. An example of a contested – but rather rare – usage of external instruments consists of comparing a mixture of binding and non-binding instruments in order to progressively evolve (and change) the Court’s case law. Overall, however, the Grand Chamber adopts a rather traditional approach to its interpretative ‘sources’, not according to non-binding instruments an independent decisive weight.In the Grand Chamber cases issued after Demir and Baykara v. Turkey, the Court did not undertake efforts to further justify and explain its referencing practice. In our view, two provisions might nonetheless operate as valuable vehicles to enhance the legality of some references. It concerns, more particularly, Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT, inciting the Court to take into account external applicable norms, and Article 53 ECHR, offering a ‘safeguard’ for human rights. Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT is regularly used by the Court in connection to the method of ‘harmonious interpretation’, accommodating the obligations of the ECHR with external obligations (that risk to conflict with the Convention). We agree that Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT – covering a principle of ‘systemic integration’ – offers a legal basis for a coordinative integration of external applicable requirements. Some caution is nonetheless required; the creation of convergence between the ECHR and external legal domains should not supersede the aim of effective and progressive human rights protection. Therefore, when a conflict arises between the ECHR and an external provision, this should be clearly acknowledged instead of being artificially ignored under a pretext of ‘harmonisation’ and ‘anti-fragmentation’. Subsequently, the conflict should be solved by means of ‘hierarchical integration’ (giving precedence to human rights law) rather than by ‘coordinative integration’.Although the Court references Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT to support harmonious interpretation between the ECHR and external instruments outside the human rights domain, this case law study demonstrates that it does generally not cite this provision in respect of references to human rights catalogues other than the ECHR. For that reason, a criticism claiming that the Court misuses Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT to expand the ECHR on the basis of external higher human rights provisions, largely misses ground. This does not mean, however, that Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT has no relevance in respect of the importation of other human rights catalogues. Although this does not accord with the Court’s general practice, we are of the opinion that Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT mandates the Court to integrate (higher) protection standards applicable in all Member States of the Council of Europe. In other words, the ideal of ‘systemic integration’ is not only relevant in relation to the landscape of (general) international law, but should also permeate the domain of human rights law. As a harmonizing principle, it is supposed to encourage the Court to take account of ratified external human rights catalogues, including their authoritative interpretation by external monitoring bodies. Article 53 ECHR supports this argument too. This provision offers a human rights safeguard ensuring peaceful coexistence between the ECHR and higher protection standards. The message of Article 53 ECHR towards the Strasbourg judges is twofold. In its procedural dimension, the Court should use it directly, to sanction a State that, on the national level, did not give precedence to the highest applicable human rights standard. In its substantive dimension, this provision has effects similar to those of Article 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT. When higher and binding human rights standards are applicable in all Member States, Article 53 ECHR obliges the Court to substantively integrate them into its interpretation of the ECHR. In addition, we argue that Article 53 ECHR offers a symmetric human rights safeguard, preventing a downward evolution of the ECHR on the basis of external human rights instruments offering lower standards. The proposed interpretation of Article 53 ECHR is innovative, yet controversial; so far, the Court has not used it in this manner. In line with Articles 31 paragraph 3 (c) VCLT and 53 ECHR, we argue that external instruments, under certain conditions, exercise a binding authority. Apart from that, referencing could be exercised in an optional manner, for instance in order to support argumentative purposes such as ‘evolutive’, ‘practical and effective’, and ‘autonomous’ reasoning and/or the establishment of a ‘margin of appreciation’. Essentially, these interpretation principles are covered by a holistic reading of the rules of the VCLT. A concept that catches well a combined reading of the rules of the VCLT, without losing sight of the specificity of human rights law, is the search for ‘opinio juris under the treaty’. Under this interpretative framework, an emerging or an ambiguous State consensus may suffice to develop a dynamic interpretation of the ECHR, provided that the incomplete consensus is confirmed by an opinio juris. To establish an emerging or ambiguous State consensus, ‘hard’ and ratified legal instruments (of national or international origin) are of particular relevance. In addition, a wide variety of (non-binding) external instruments might be useful to demonstrate the opinio juris. Besides legal provisions, some other, less formal, users’ arguments may validate some aspects of the referencing practice. The usage of external human rights catalogues – possibly containing higher protection standards, rights of other ‘generations’, or more specialized and specific provisions – contributes to the creation of human rights that are effective, universal and indivisible. This serves the rights holders who have an interest in equal treatment by a law that operates as a ‘ius gentium’, and in an adjudication process that does justice to all specificities of their identity and lived experiences. In addition, referencing could contribute to progressively evolve the protection of human rights. The referencing practice also enhances the coherence of the system, which is beneficial for ‘legal certainty’ vis-à-vis all users of human rights. Moreover, external referencing may contribute to a more nuanced and ‘shared’ decision-making, inspired by the positions and insights of various actors. Indeed, by means of comparative law, judges can build a dialectic network of mutual influences and communicative enrichment on a global scale. When we acknowledge that it is the Court’s task to translate pluralism in balanced outcomes and to canalize the different interests underlying a case, the importation of external views from across the globe may help the Court is assuming that responsibility. The Strasbourg judges find particularly valuable tools in external instruments. Not only could their usage enhance the procedural economy and the deformalization of the decision-making process, external citations may also make a reasoning more convincing and authoritative towards the audience. However, these benefits only play to the extent that external referencing is transparent, consistent and systematically relies on a solid legal framework.To optimize the justification of the referencing practice, this doctoral thesis recommends the Court to better embed its external citations in both formal and informal arguments. We have done several suggestions as to how such arguments might be developed in practice. Their use could boost the valid usage of external instruments, which, under certain conditions, offers good opportunities for a persuasive interpretation and application of the ECHRWe started our research with a sketch of the present normative environment; it is disordered and can be metaphorically compared to a jungle. The Strasbourg judges walk through this area and use lianas to make connections between all elements that compose this forest. Through their referencing practice, they communicate, learn, and argue. In an ecosystem, all organisms are dependent on one another; they cannot survive in isolation. Following the rules of nature, the organisms mutually profit from each other’s existence and finally, provide each other with oxygen. In order to be good rangers in this jungle, the Strasbourg judges should recognize and acknowledge the existence and the value of all the other organisms. In addition, to ensure a high degree of balance in the ecosystem, they should keep an eye both on the system’s rules (legality) and on the views and interests of those that benefit from the system (the users of human rights). By handling the lianas in such manner, the Court contributes to more coherence of the system (combating ‘fragmentation’) and caters for the users’ needs. This does not mean that one day, the jungle will be turned into a nicely organized cornfield. Some diversity in global times is inevitable and necessary. After all, it is the chaotic context that offers us tools to advance the law, to persuade the public, etc. The art is not to replace pluralism by unity, but to find a balance between divergence and convergence by creating a form of justice that is shared by all. / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

De quels critères disposons-nous pour évaluer la validité d’une opinion ?La<p>première partie de la thèse revient sur les tentatives des approches contemporaines<p>de l’argumentation de répondre à cette question. Les approches normatives<p>(pragma-dialectique et logique informelle) évaluent la construction des preuves à<p>l’aune d’un idéal de rationalité, lui-même garanti par un ensemble de règles quant à<p>la construction et la formulation publique des arguments. Les approches descriptives<p>(travaux de Plantin et Doury en particulier) se fondent sur une critique de cette<p>méthode :en prétendant fournir des évaluations objectives des arguments, les<p>théoriciens normatifs s’engagent dans le processus argumentatif et, en définitive,<p>produisent des contre-argumentations et non des évaluations. C’est à l’aune du<p>problème du statut épistémologique de la preuve en histoire que j’ai choisi d’illustrer<p>les limites de l’approche descriptive. En particulier, l’oeuvre du critique littéraire<p>Hayden White se caractérise par une même relation entre (1) un scepticisme sur la<p>possibilité d’établir des critères de rationalité et (2) un parti-pris descriptif :les<p>explications historiques pourraient être décrites comme autant de figures rhétoriques,<p>mais on ne saurait définir un critère permettant d’en évaluer la validité. Comme l’a<p>bien montré Carlo Ginzburg, le scepticisme de White ouvre la porte à toutes les<p>dérives négationnistes.<p>Partant, dans une seconde partie, je propose un modèle d’analyse alternatif. Ce<p>modèle s’appuie sur la définition de la rhétorique comme une dunamis par Aristote :<p>une capacité perfectible à porter un regard technique sur les preuves. Il s’agit,<p>concrètement, de prendre en compte trois points de vues sur la preuve :(1) le point<p>de vue de l’orateur qui invente ses preuves face à un problème concret ;(2) le point<p>de vue de l’artisan qui façonne la matière persuasive; (3) le point de vue de<p>l’auditoire qui reçoit les preuves. L’exercice de ces trois points de vues permet à<p>l’analyste de juger les choix rhétoriques d’un orateur à l’aune de sa propre<p>conscience, perfectible par l’exercice, des alternatives possibles et de leur pertinence<p>en fonction des auditoires concernés. Le critère de rationalité n’est alors pas idéaliste<p>ou transcendant, il est humaniste (Chaïm Perelman, Emmanuelle Danblon) :il est de<p>l’ordre de l’expérience acquise.<p>Dans une troisième partie, j’applique mon modèle à trois ouvrages d’histoire :<p>(1) Les traites négrières d’Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau ;(2) La vie fragile d’Arlette<p>Farge ;(3) The Ascent of Money de Niall Ferguson. Dans chaque cas, j’évalue les<p>choix rhétoriques des historiens (quant aux usages des preuves extra-techniques et<p>à la construction des trois preuves techniques) au regard des problèmes<p>épistémologiques qu’ils affrontent* et des auditoires potentiels auxquels ils<p>s’adressent. Dans chaque cas, je consacre une partie de l’analyse aux réactions<p>suscitées par leurs ouvrages. Ce faisant, je peux mesurer le caractère anti-rhétorique<p>des pratiques actuelles de la critique :le repérage d’une figure de rhétorique<p>(analogie ou métaphore), d’une forte personnalité ou d’un appel aux émotions<p>suffisent à disqualifier un argument aux yeux des critiques. En d’autres termes, notre<p>tradition critique est pétrie d’illusions normatives et, en premier lieu, l’illusion selon<p>laquelle une preuve pourrait être administrée sans technique. Je conclus en montrant<p>que ces illusions, entretenues par notre tradition philosophique, nous ont fait perdre<p>beaucoup de temps dans le développement d’une formation à l’argumentation qui<p>soit de nature à exercer la dunamis critique des étudiants.<p><p>*<p>(1) établir la vérité historique sur un sujet à fort potentiel polémique ;(2) exprimer les intuitions de la<p>phase de découverte ;(3) formuler et justifier une prédiction. / Doctorat en Langues et lettres / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Doctorat en philosophie et lettres / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Dans cette étude nous nous proposons de mettre au jour ce qui assure la cohérence du texte dans quatre récits autobiographiques d’André Breton : Nadja, Les Vases communicants, L’Amour fou et Arcane 17. Nous proposons de les appeler « tétralogie » bretonienne. Après avoir montré que les approches en narratologie ne sont pas adaptées à cette fin, nous verrons que l’argumentation ayant pour but de transmettre l’idée du surréalisme donne un cadre intégrateur à ces récits pour en assurer la cohérence. Chaque texte doit selon nous être considéré comme une situation de communication entre le lecteur et l’auteur, c’est-à-dire dans sa dimension pragmatique et énonciative. L’illustration photographique, présente dans trois récits de la « tétralogie », fait partie des moyens mis en œuvre par l’acte d’argumenter. Elle contribue au mieux à cette communication-argumentation. Nous démontrons que ces récits doivent être considérés comme des « livres illustrés » modernisés par la photographie. Dans cette optique, nous examinons le rôle et l’évolution de la photographie à travers la « tétralogie ».Nous montrons que la situation de communication est figurée dans chacun des quatre récits comme un espace théâtral car chacun d’eux est construit comme un théâtre virtuel et fantasmatique. La théorie freudienne du rêve et du théâtre nous permet d’explorer la théâtralité de la « tétralogie » tout en résolvant le paradoxe du théâtre chez BRETON. / This study aims at clarifying the textual coherence in four autobiographical narratives of the Surrealist Poet André Breton: Nadja, Les Vases communicants, L’Amour fou and Arcane 17, which we propose to call “bretonian tetralogy”. Our main thesis is the central importance, in this “tetralogy”, of acts and means of convincing the reader of the genuineness of Surrealism. And the author succeeds in establishing a dynamic tête-à-tête relation with his reader, which endows each narrative with its inward coherence. Photography plays a key role in this rhetoric scheme, and we put forward the interpretation of “bretonian tetralogy” as a variation of 19th century’s illustrated book modernized by the medium and visualization device. On the basis of Freud’s theory about dream and theatricality, we demonstrate that these narratives must be considered as virtual theatres since incorporated theatricality is a way of reminding and exploiting, in the shape of a text, the discourse situation underway between communication partners; Breton and his reader.

Denna studie undersöker de tre mest etablerade partierna i Sverige och deras användning av Twitter ur ett retoriskt perspektiv. Twitter används numer frekvent av politiker och kan ses som en slagkraftig informationskanal för framstående personer i maktposition. Studien avser att söka förståelse för hur politiska partier argumenterar för sin egen politiska agenda med utgångspunkt i kritisk retorik och topikanalys. Det teoretiska ramverket för uppsatsen är baserat på en modern förståelse av begreppet topik och genom att undersöka ett antal inlägg inom en viss tidsram söker uppsatsen kartlägga vilka topiker partierna utgår från i sin argumentation. Resultatet visar hur partierna anlägger olika strategier för sina tweets genom de inferentiella och kognitiva topiker de väljer för att föra fram sitt budskap och söka stöd för sin agenda.

There has been a call to reform science education to integrate scientific thinking practices, such as data interpretation and modeling, with learning content in science classrooms. This call to reform has taken place in both K-12 science education through Next Generation Science Standards and undergraduate education through AAAS initiative Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education. This dissertation work examines undergraduate students' learning of multiple scientific thinking skills in a curricular format called Teaching Real data Interpretation with Models (TRIM) applied to a large-enrollment course in Cellular and Developmental Biology. In TRIM, students are provided worksheets in groups and tasked to interpret authentic biological data. Importantly, groups are tasked to relate their data interpretations to a 2D visual model representation of the relevant biological process. This dissertation work consists of two studies with the overarching question: How do students use model representations to interpret data interpretations? In the first study, we primarily describe how students learn to navigate and interpret discipline-based data representations. We found the majority of groups could construct quality written data interpretations. Qualitative coding analysis on group discourse found students relied on strategies such as decoding the data representation and noticing data patterns together to construct claims. Claims were refined through spontaneous collaborative argumentation. We also found groups used the provided model to connect their data inferences to a biological context. In the second study, we primarily target our analysis on how individual students relate their data interpretations to different modeling tasks, including student-generation of their own model drawing. I interviewed students one-on-one as they worked through TRIM-style worksheets. From iterative qualitative analysis of transcripts and collected video on hand movements, I characterize the forms of reasoning at play at the interface of data and model representations. I propose a model at the end of Study 2 describing three modes of reasoning in data abstraction into models. I found when relating between data and models, students needed to link signs in both representations to a common referent in the real-world phenomenon. Establishing this sign-referent relationship seemed to depend on bringing in outside mechanistic information about the phenomenon. Once a mechanism was established, students could fluidly move between data and model representations through mechanistic reasoning. Thus data abstraction seems to rely on mechanistic reasoning with models. The findings from this dissertation work support the feasibility of student development of multiple scientific thinking skills within a large lecture course, and provide targets for curriculum and assignment designs centered on teaching higher order reasoning skills.

Uppsatsens syfte är att undersöka hur en tidning som Aftonbladet handskas med frågan om det globala miljöhotet; vilka känslor de appellerar till genom sin kampanj i både text och bild. Material som analyseras i uppsatsen är Aftonbladets serie om det globala miljöhotet. Den innehåller artiklar om såväl obefintliga snögubbar i framtiden och ett översvämmat Stockholm som skövlad regnskog och den förre amerikanske vicepresidenten Al Gore´s egna miljötips. Kampanjens ständiga maning var att skriva på ett upprop på Aftonbladets hemsida och på så vis avge fem löften för att bli en bättre miljövän. Den visuella argumentationen analyseras och kommer bland annat att visa på en stark tonvikt på känsloargument.

Ce travail de recherche s’attache à spécifier la valeur argumentative de l’analogie à la lumière des recherches récentes sur l’analogie en prenant compte l’apport des sciences cognitives. Les liens de l’analogie avec une théorie plus générale de l’argumentation sont étudiés. Un corpus a été constitué, constituant une étude de cas, celui du discours de la critique cinématographique. Ce travail met en évidence le lien argumentatif entre analogie et connivence, phénomène qui a pu être observé dans diverses de ses manifestations et qui conduit à définir ce discours comme genre de discours dans la relation particulière qu’il instaure entre orateur et auditoire, entre critique et lecteur. Cette recherche a évolué vers ce qui semble être la caractéristique majeure de ce type de critiques : la recherche d'une forme ou d'une autre de connivence avec le lecteur. / This research aims to specify the argumentative value of analogy in light of recent research on analogy and its links with a more general theory of argumentation. A body has been formed, constituting a case study, the discourse of film criticism. This work highlights the argumentative relationship between analogy and collusion, a phenomenon that has been observed in a variety of its manifestations and leads to define this discourse as a kind of speech in the special relationship that develops between speaker and audience, between critical and reader. This research has evolved into what appears to be the major feature of this type of criticism: the search for a form or other of complicity with the reader.

This thesis analyzes the political essays of critically-acclaimed and best-selling Colombian author William Ospina (b. March 2, 1954) within the context of the contemporary political Spanish American essays published post 1989. Taking into account his original Romantic answer to the Spanish American left ideological crisis at the end of the 20th century, and the debate which arose among his commentators on the merits of his rhetorical and argumentative techniques used to justify his theses, I examine Ospina´s main political essays using Belgian philosopher Chaïm Perelman's argumentation theory. I claim that, despite his prominence as one of Colombia´s public opinion leaders and most politically engaged intellectuals, his originality within recent Spanish American essay and thought, and the relevance of his warnings against modern society's biggest problems and contradictions, the author’s controversial rhetoric and argumentation fell short of supporting his critique of Western civilization and promoting his Romantic alternatives to current problems. I also claim that Ospina's preference for certain argumentative devices results in literary texts which struggle between the essay and the pamphlet, and oversimplifies the Romantic ideas he tries to defend. Finally, my work has allowed me to point out the lack of academic studies and concrete textual analysis on Ospina´s essays and literary works, the recent Spanish American essay after 1989, and the study of the Spanish American essay’s argumentative purpose, structure and techniques, making this study a first step in the further development of these fields.