We argue that legal argumentation, as the subject matter as well as a special subfield of Argumentation Studies (AS), has to be examined by making skilled use of the full panoply of tools such as argumentation and story schemes which are at the forefront of current work in AS. In reviewing the literature, we make explicit our own methodological choices (particularly regarding the place of normative deliberation in practical reasoning) and then illustrate the implications of such an approach through the (...) analysis of a case study in the English law of evidence. We argue that a clear distinction must be drawn between practical argumentation and stories. Because of the institutional separation between legal judgment and fact-finding in common-law jury trials, we argue for the combination of argument and story-based analysis. (shrink)

Friedrich Müller has made important methodological contributions to constitutional theory. Our aim in this chapter is to contextualize his approach by comparing it to previous and current contributions. The first part of the paper addresses the relation between the hermeneutic tradition and his theory. In the second part, we discuss the specific characteristics of his Structuring Legal Theory. Finally, we point to some critical aspects of the theory.