Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Conceptions and Misconceptions of Legislation pp 175–206Cite as

Legislation and Argumentation: Towards a Model for the Analysis of Legislative Reasoning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Legisprudence Library ((LEGIS,volume 5))

Abstract

In some articles and books I have suggested a twofold approach to the analysis of legislative argumentation—as carried out within parliaments—which combines two perspectives. On the one hand, in an attempt to reconstruct the process of legislative argumentation, I have outlined a framework or scheme that accounts for the different stages of a legislative discussion; for the issues or questions raised at each stage; for the arguers’ attitudes towards these questions (basically, approval or refusal); and for the reasons advanced for and against these attitudes or positions. On the other hand, this approach entails an empirical study of pieces or fragments of legislative argumentation—i.e. of the argumentation by an MP in relation to one of the issues discussed in parliamentary debates. Drawing on this previous work, my objective now is to further develop my account of legislative argumentation in the light of two recent (series of) legislative debates held in the Spanish Parliament. One is about the reform of the regulation of underage girl’s access to abortion (2015), and the other is about the controversial Citizen Security Act (2015). Upon examining these two “legislative cases”, I will discuss the implications of the analysis and evaluation of legislative argumentation in parliament, drawing several conclusions that may hopefully stimulate further research—both theoretical and applied—on this topic. In this connection, I think that by delving into the study of parliamentary reasoning about legislation (as a special variant of argument in law) we may well find strong support for a more complex and less “unifying” conception of legal reasoning than the one underlying the “standard”, judicial-oriented theories of legal argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Most of these essays are collected in Atienza (1997); see also Atienza (1992).

  2. 2.

    On the distinction between the “internal” and “external” analysis of legislative rationality, see Atienza (1992, pp. 281–82; 1997, p. 53 ff.).

  3. 3.

    I think the only exception to this are some manifestations by some representative of the Basque Nationalist Party and Convergence and Unió that, in any case, do not contribute anything from the argumentative point of view, that is, they do not introduce new arguments in the debate. And in relation to the coincidences, there are obviously some differences in accent (and rhetoric), but I would say that all those who opposed the approval of the law would agree with the argumentative synthesis that I will now present.

  4. 4.

    Senate’s Journal of Debates (Diario de Sesiones), X Session, no. 171, 9 September 2015, p. 16942 ff.

  5. 5.

    See the repealed Section 4 of Article 13 on the previous page. The reform did not affect Sections 1 to 3 of this Article, which read: “Necessary requirements for a voluntary interruption of pregnancy are: (1) that it be practiced by a specialized doctor or under her direction; (2) that it be carried out in an authorized public or private health center; (3) that it be carried upon the explicit and written consent of the pregnant woman or, eventually, of her legal representative in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law 41/2002, regulating patient autonomy and the rights and obligations related to clinical information and documentation [Patient Autonomy Act]. Explicit consent may be dispensed with in the case provided for in Article 9.2.b) of this Act”.

  6. 6.

    Previously, this section stated: “Consent-giving by representation shall be appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate to the needs that must be met, always in favor of the patient and with due respect for her personal dignity. Inasmuch as it is possible, the patient shall participate in any decision taken throughout the entire duration of the health treatment”.

  7. 7.

    See Atienza (2013, p. 423 ff.).

  8. 8.

    Atienza (2013).

  9. 9.

    I will return to this point later.

  10. 10.

    I put to one side how things would be if the relevant audience were the public opinion (or part of it).

  11. 11.

    Congress’ Journal of Debates (Diario de Sesiones), X Session, no. 230, 16 October 2014, p. 22 ff.

  12. 12.

    In what follows, citations of debate passages combine a capital letter with a number. “A” stands for the debate held on 25 November 2014 (Congress’ Journal of Debates, X Session, Committees, No. 35); “B” for the plenary debate held on 16 October 2014 (Congress’ Journal of Debates, X Session, Plenum, no. 214); “C” for the plenary debate held on 11 December 2014 (Congress’ Journal of Debate, X Session, Plenum, no. 233); “D” for the plenary debate held in the Senate on 12 March 2015 (Senate’s Journal of Debates, X Session, no. 68); and “E” stands for the plenary debate held in the Congress on 26 March 2015 (Congress’ Journal of Debates, X Session, Plenum, no. 252). The number following the capital letter indicates the page number in the Congress’ or Senate’s Journal of Debates. All debate minutes are available at: www.congreso.es.

  13. 13.

    The previous Organic Law 1/1992 on the protection of citizen security—enacted in a period of socialist government—was known as the “kick-on-the-door Act”.

  14. 14.

    Ceuta and Melilla are “autonomous cities”, located on the African Mediterranean coast, in whose surroundings hundreds of migrants wait for an opportunity to cross the Spanish border.

  15. 15.

    At that time, this infanta’s husband was facing charges of corruption.

  16. 16.

    So-called preferentistas are bank clients who were fooled by some (savings) banks’ massive offer of preferred stock viz. preference shares.

  17. 17.

    In general elections in Spain, ballots and ballot envelopes are white for deputies (to Congress) and sepia for senators.

  18. 18.

    The Republican Left of Catalonia is a Catalonian independentist party.

  19. 19.

    Amaiur is a left-wing independentist coalition from the Basque Country and Navarre.

  20. 20.

    This electoral coalition is connected to Batasuna, a political party—now disappeared—that supported ETA’s terrorist actions.

  21. 21.

    “Convergence and Union” (short: CiU) was a Catalonian nationalist electoral alliance consisting of two parties: Democratic Convergence of Catalonia and Democratic Union of Catalonia.

  22. 22.

    The Spanish Constitutional Court accepted an appeal of unconstitutionality against various articles of the act (the Court’s decision is still pending).

  23. 23.

    Cf. Oliver-Lalana (2013, p. 147 ff.).

  24. 24.

    See Díez-Ripollés’ piece in this volume (Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.2).

  25. 25.

    To give but some examples, in this session (legislatura), the Spanish Parliament discussed and approved an Act on maritime navigation, an Act on metrology, or an Act on the mutual recognition of criminal judgments within the European Union.

  26. 26.

    See Atienza (2013).

  27. 27.

    See Atienza and García Amado (2014) and Atienza (2017b).

  28. 28.

    See, in this volume, Chap. 6 (Sieckmann 2018) and Chap. 7 (Marcilla 2018), as well as Oliver-Lalana (2016, pp. 9–10).

  29. 29.

    For a different understanding of the “internal” legislative justification, see Oliver-Lalana (2017).

  30. 30.

    On the argument from authority, see Atienza (2012) or, more in depth, Atienza (2014).

  31. 31.

    See Atienza (2013, 2015).

  32. 32.

    This is the type of debates which concern us here, but, of course, parliamentarians do a number of things other than approving bills, and therefore debate on many other questions.

  33. 33.

    Bentham (2015).

  34. 34.

    See further Atienza (2017b).

  35. 35.

    In Chap. 7 (Sect. 7.3.2), Marcilla (2018) defends a different position.

  36. 36.

    See on this Atienza (2017a).

References

  • Alexy R (2010) A theory of legal argumentation: the theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (2009) Rhetoric. A&D Publishing, Knutsford

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (1992) Practical reason and legislation. Ratio Juris 5(3):269–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (1997) Contribución a una teoría de la legislación. Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (2005) Legislation and argumentation. In: Wintgens LJ (ed) The theory and practice of legislation. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 297–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (2012) El argumento de autoridad en el Derecho. El Cronista del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho 30:14–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (2013) Curso de argumentación jurídica. Trotta, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (2014) El argumento de autoridad en el Derecho. In: Gagiao y Conde J (ed) La notion d’autorité en droit. Éditions Le Manuscrit, Paris, pp 67–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (2015) La guerra de las falacias, 4th edn. Librería Compás, Alicante

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (2017a) Filosofía del Derecho y transformación social. Trotta, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (2017b) Alexy and the “Argumentative Turn” in contemporary legal theory. In: Borowski M, Paulson S, Sieckmann J-R (eds) Rechtsphilosophie und Grundrechte. Robert Alexys System. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 207–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M, García Amado JA (2014) Un debate sobre la ponderación. Palestra, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham J (2015) The book of fallacies. In: Schofield P (ed) The collected works of Jeremy Bentham. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marcilla G (2018) Proportionality in lawmaking. An attempt of justification in the light of both a constitutionalist and an argumentative conception of law. In: Oliver-Lalana AD (ed) Conceptions and misconceptions of legislation. Springer, Cham. (In this volume)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2013) Rational lawmaking and legislative reasoning in parliamentary debate. In: Wintgens L, Oliver-Lalana AD (eds) The rationality and justification of legislation. Essays in legisprudence. Springer, Cham, pp 135–184

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2014) Normas y razones. In: Grández P, Morales F (eds) La argumentación jurídica en el Estado constitucional. Palestra, Lima, pp 491–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2016) ¿Le importa a alguien que los legisladores razonen? Lisbon Law Rev LVII:5–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2017) Mejores y peores argumentaciones legislativas. Paper held at the Workshop “La motivazione delle leggi”, Università di Milano, April 2017. Manuscript on file with the author (a shortened version in Italian has been published as: Megliori e peggiori argomentazioni legislative. In: Ferraro F, Zorzetto S (eds) La motivazione delle leggi, Giapichelli, Torino, 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieckmann J-R (2018) Legislation as balancing. In: Oliver-Lalana AD (ed) Conceptions and misconceptions of legislation. Springer, Cham. (In this volume)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain

    Manuel Atienza

Authors
  1. Manuel Atienza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Atienza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universtiy of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

    A. Daniel Oliver-Lalana

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Atienza, M. (2019). Legislation and Argumentation: Towards a Model for the Analysis of Legislative Reasoning. In: Oliver-Lalana, A. (eds) Conceptions and Misconceptions of Legislation. Legisprudence Library, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12068-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12068-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12067-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12068-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation