The subject of this diploma thesis is discourse theory and its reflection on the style of judicial decision-making and argumentation. Discourse theory is based on the fundamental assumption that an interaction of more people is needed to achieve right and just knowledge. This is so because an individual is not capable of surmounting her or his own subjective perception of reality. On the contrary, a dialogue enables the articulation of opposing points of view and thus makes it possible to arrive at a more objective and just knowledge. The discourse theory of law, developed by J. Habermas and primarily by R. Alexy, ranks among the theories of legal argumentation with the dialogical approach to the desicion- making as a basic feature. The judge is no longer perceived as an authority that dictates a binding solution of the case to the parties. He or she cooperates with the parties to find and co-create the law to be applied. Discourse theory also stresses the claim to the equal position of parties. According to the contradictory principle, all parties have the same possibility to defend their statements and points of view. The parties and the judge thus create a discourse community in which they argue about the disputed subject and its legal solution. The ideal of the legal discourse theory is to render...
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:nusl.cz/oai:invenio.nusl.cz:353985 |
| Date | January 2016 |
| Creators | Stříbrná, Alžběta |
| Contributors | Kühn, Zdeněk, Ondřejek, Pavel |
| Source Sets | Czech ETDs |
| Language | Czech |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds