THREE LEVELS OF CONCLUSIVENESS OF LEGAL ARGUMENTATION
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica, ISSN: 2450-2782, Vol: 97, Issue: 1, Page: 251-262
2021
- 10Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage10
- Downloads9
- Abstract Views1
Article Description
Article presents three analytical perspectives of the problem of closing legal argumentation against the background of the central interpretative assumptions of two leading Polish theories of interpretation, i.e. the clarificative and derivational concept. Author presents thesis that the ability of operative interpretation to regulate social relations is, inter alia, the resultant of conclusiveness of a given interpretative paradigm and the cultural context in which it is embedded. Regardless of the validation of the result of interpretation in the legal discourse, i.e. in the environment of professionals, it is possible that the directives of interpretation, which constitute a cultural artifact, are not fully compatible with the ideological and axiological assumptions of the legal and political culture of a given society, constituting a counter-productive element of that culture.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85150293003&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.97.14; https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/Iuridica/article/view/11782; https://digijournals.uni.lodz.pl/aul_foliaiuridica/vol97/iss1/14; https://digijournals.uni.lodz.pl/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1212&context=aul_foliaiuridica; https://dx.doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.97.14
Uniwersytet Lodzki (University of Lodz)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know