This paper shows how defeasible argumentation schemes can be used to represent the logical structure of the arguments used in statutory interpretation. In particular we shall address the eleven kinds of argument identified MacCormick and Summers [6] and the thirteen kinds of argument by Tarello [11] . We show that interpretative argumentation has a distinctive structure where the claim that a legal text ought or may be interpreted in a certain way can be supported or attacked by arguments, whose conflicts may have to be assessed according to further arguments.
展开▼
