The full text of the article is available only in Russian.
The article contains rhetorical analysis of arguments employed in cases where restrictions on fundamental rights have been challenged. It starts with a short overview of how “restrictions” are construed by different legal scholars in Russia, and a working definition of restrictions for the purposes of the analysis is given: it is understood as any narrowing of the scope of fundamental rights or their denial. In the next section the nature of legal arguments as rhetoric arguments is shown. Further, different types of conclusions drawn from valid and invalid premises and used with dialectic, sophistic or eristic purposes in attempts to justify restrictions of constitutional rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of belief and right to liberty and security of person in the texts of judicial decisions are analyzed. It is argued, that the purpose of correct legal arguments is to look at the problem from different perspectives, to find a just solution and to achieve the consent and adherence of the audience. Valid, or dialectic, arguments are contrasted with fallacies (sophistic and eristic conclusions). Then examples of these three types of reasoning from the texts of judicial decisions of Russian courts are adduced and analyzed. Dialectic argumentation is exemplified by the reasoning of the Constitutional Court in famous Dadin’s case on criminal prosecution for repeated participation in unauthorized, though peaceful, public gatherings. Sophistic arguments are illustrated by cases, where courts employed paraphrases and other types of misuse of terms in order to avoid procedural guarantees for the restriction of constitutional rights (similar to “stop and frisk” instead of “arrest and search”), intentionally misinterpreted the positions of the ECtHR or provisions of the Russian Constitution, omitted significant parts in the structure of argument (used claims without warrants) or resorted to argument by division. Eristic arguments are present in cases, when purely formal considerations (for instance, such as use of the word “approved” instead of “adopted”) serve as grounds for denial of constitutional rights. Differentiation between dialectic reasoning, aimed at finding a fair balance between conflicting rights and interests for the best solution of legal problem, and type of reasoning, which formally looks like the process of argumentation but de facto is not, allows to identify flaws in the process of judicial justification and to prepare convincing counter-arguments for upper national courts and the ECtHR. In some cases it also gives grounds for putting forward and sustaining the thesis, that grounds for imposed restrictions on fundamental rights laid outside the boundaries of law. In any case, use of eristic arguments is a clear evidence of unlawfulness of the restriction imposed, and use of sophistic arguments forces the audience to suspect partiality or absence of independence in judicial decision-making. However, dialectic style of reasoning cannot be predominant without judicial ethics, critical thinking, independent judiciary and real adversarial nature of judicial proceedings.
Citation: Soboleva A. (2019) Ritorika ogranicheniy: argumentatsiya v sudebnykh sporakh o fundamental’nykh pravakh [Rhetoric of restrictions: arguments in judicial decisions on fundamental rights]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.28, no.5, pp.34–54. (In Russian).
About the author: Anita Soboleva – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Philology, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
Abezin D.A., Anisimov A.P. (2013) Ogranicheniya i zaprety v chastnom i publichnom prave [Restrictions and prohibitions in private and public law]. Pravovaya kul’tura, vol.14, no.1, pp.60–66. (In Russian).
Aleinikoff T.A. (1987) Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing. The Yale Law Journal, vol.96, no.5, pp.943–1005.
Alexy R. (1989) A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arutyunyan G.G. (2006) Kriterii i ogranicheniya v praktike konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya [Criteria for restrictions in the practice of constitutional justice]. Rossiyskoe pravosudie, no.2, pp.14–16. (In Russian).
Barak A. (2012) Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations, D.Kalir (transl.), Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brkan M. (2018). The Concept of Essence of Fundamental Rights in the EU Legal Order: Peeling the Onion to Its Core. European Constitutional Law Review, vol.14, no.2, pp.332–368.
Van Eemeren F.H., Garssen B., Krabbe E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans A.F., Verheij B., Wagemans J.H.M. (2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Dordrecht: Springer.
Krasnov M.A. (2009) Ogranichenie prav cheloveka ili poisk ikh estestvennykh predelov [Restrictions on human rights or search for its natural limits?]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, no.2, pp.105–115. (In Russian).
Kreuzbauer G. (2008) Topics in Contemporary Legal Argumentation: Some Remarks on the Topical Nature of Legal Argumentation in the Continental Law Tradition. Informal Logic, vol.28, no.1, pp.71–85.
Lazarev V.V. (2009) Ogranichenie prav i svobod kak teoreticheskaya i prakticheskaya problema [Limitation of rights and freedoms as a theoretical and practical problem]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no.9, pp.35–47. (In Russian).
Lisanyuk E.N. (2014) Sofistika – eto ne argumentatsiya [Sophistics is not argumentation]. SCHOLE. Filosofskoe antikovedenie i klassicheskaya traditsiya, vol.8, no.2, pp.268–274. (In Russian).
Lisanyuk E.N. (ed.) (2018) Argumentatsiya v prave i morali: kollektivnaya monografiya [Arguments in law and morals: a collective monograph], Moscow: Alef-Press. (In Russian).
Lowrie M., Lüdemann S. (eds.) (2015) Exemplarity and Singularity: Thinking through Particulars in Philosophy, Literature, and Law, New York: Routledge.
Mal’ko A.V. (2018) Ogranicheniya v prave: problemy teorii, praktiki i politiki [Restrictions in law: problems of theory, practice and policy]. Yuridicheskaya tekhnika, no.12, pp.238–248. (In Russian).
Merrils J.G. (1993) The Development of the International Law by the European Court of Human Rights, 2nd ed., Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Perelman Ch. (1982) The Realm of Rhetoric, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Podmarev A.A. (2014) Ogranichenie prav i svobod cheloveka i grazhdanina: opredelenie konstitutsionnogo ponyatiya [Restrictions on rights and freedoms of a man and citizen: definition of the constitutional term]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Yuridicheskie nauki, no.2, pp.9–16.
Povarnin S.I. (1918) Spor. O teorii i praktike spora [Dispuite. On theory and practice of dispute], Petrograd: Izdatel’stvo O.Bogdanovoy. (In Russian).
Rankin H.D. (1983) Sophists, Socratics and Cynics. London; Canberra: Croom Helm; Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble.
Rekosh K.H. (2013) Iskusstva eristiki, dialektiki i sofistiki kak predposylki razvitiya pravovogo diskursa [Art of eristic, dialectic and sophistic arguments as premises for development of legal discourse]. Vestnik MGIMO – Universiteta, vol.30, no.3, pp.212–220. (In Russian).
Ruzavin G.I. (1997) Metodologicheskie problemy argumentatsii [Methodological problems of argumentation], Moscow: IFRAN. (In Russian).
Schopenhauer A. (1910) Eristicheskaya dialektika [Eristic dialectics], Moscow: Izdanie D.P.Efimova. (In Russian).
Semenyuta N.N. (2000) Zaprety i ogranicheniya v pravovom regulirovanii trudovykh otnosheniy v Rossiyskoy Federatsii : Avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Prohibitions and restrictions in legal regulation of labour relations in the Russian Federation: Abstract of a dissertation… candidate of legal science], Ekaterinburg (In Russian).
Timoshina E., Kraevski A., Salmin D. (2015) Metodologiya sudebnogo tolkovaniya: instrumenty vzveshivaniya v situatsii konkurentsii prav cheloveka [Axiology of judicial interpretation: means of weighing in the situation of competition of human rights]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo, no.3, pp.4–34. (In Russian).
Troitskaya A. (2015) Predely prav i absolyutnye prava: za ramkami printsipa proportsional’nosti? Teoreticheskie voprosy i praktika Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF [Limits of rights and absolute rights: are they beyond proportionality? Theoretical questions and the Russian Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.105, no.2, pp.45–69. (In Russian).
Tsakyrakis S. (2011) Proportsional’nost’: posyagatel’stvo na prava cheloveka? [Proportionality: an assault on human rights?]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.81, no.2, pp.67–72. (In Russian).
Van der Schyff G. (2008) Cutting to the Core of Conflicting Rights: The Question of Inalienable Cores in Comparative Perspective. In: Brems E. (ed.) Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights, Antwerpen: Intersentia, pp.131–147.
Vladimirov L.E. (1873) Sud prisyazhnykh: Usloviya deystviya instituta prisyazhnykh i metod razrabotki dokazatel’stv [Jury trial: conditions for activities of the jury trial institute and the method of working out the evidence], Kharkov: Universitetskaya tipografiya. (In Russian).
Voskobitova M.R. (ed.) (2005) Standarty Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka i rossiyskaya pravoprimenitel’naya praktika: sbornik analiticheskikh statey [The standards of the European Court of human rights and Russian judicial practice: a collection of analytical articles], Moscow: Anakharsis. (In Russian).
Weaver R.M. (1953) The Ethics of Rhetoric, Chicago, IL: H.Regnery Co.
Zor’kin V.D. (2006) Ugrozy mezhdunarodnoy i natsional’noy bezopasnosti i ogranicheniya prav cheloveka v praktike konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya [Threats to the international and national safety and the human rights limitations in the constitutional jurisprudence]. Rossiyskoe pravosudie, no.2, pp.3–13.
Moscow, Shchepkina str., 8
+7 (495) 608-69-59
+7 (495) 608-66-35