Legal argumentation draws its methods from a wide range of disciplines, primarily legal theory, philosophy of law, logic, rhetoric, sociology, and artificial intelligence. In recent decades, legal scholarship has been actively exploring the peculiarities of judicial decision-making, where judicial argumentation plays a key role. Judges are constantly in search of tools that provide them with greater freedom in overcoming difficulties, particularly in the implementation of judicial argumentation. Among such essential tools are legal principles, the application of which requires consideration of both historical and contemporary contexts. This dynamic approach to judicial argumentation helps to reflect the characteristics of the modern concept of sustainable development, which is founded on three pillars: economic growth, the protection of social rights, and environmental preservation. However, ensuring the sustainability of constitutional and legal development cannot be limited solely to the protection of fundamental rights. The implementation of this topical concept also demands guarantees of other substantive and procedural rights. Judicial argumentation addresses pressing issues related to the desire to reconcile stability with modifications, related to the need for continuity with the necessity of adaptation, and security with justice and overall well-being. In this argumentative process, judges strive to minimize the influence of will, which may be associated with irrationality. At the same time, the personal factor cannot be entirely excluded, since judicial argumentation is carried out by judges, and the merit of their conclusions depends on the level of legal culture and legal reasoning.
Khanlar Gadjiev (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: