Укр Eng
+380 (44) 278-80-24
“Almanac of Law”
  1. Home
  2.  ⇒ 
  3. Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026)
  4.  ⇒ 
  5. Rationality of argumentation and the argumentative nature of law enforcement

Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026), pages 613–621.

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2026-17-613-621

Orel V. А.
Rationality of argumentation and the argumentative nature of law enforcement

The article examines the argumentative nature of rationality in legal decision-making as a key condition for the legitimacy of judicial decisions. Rationality is considered not only as compliance with the requirements of legality and logical correctness, but also as the result of a discursive procedure of public justification of normative premises and their interpretation. Accordingly, rationality in law emerges as a discursive and procedural characteristic of legal argumentation.

Conceptual approaches to practical rationality are analysed, primarily those presented in the works of foreign scholars (R. Alexy, A. Peczenik, N. MacCormick, and others) and domestic researchers, as well as critical positions of legal realism (J. Frank and others). A distinction between the psychological process of decision-making and its normative justification is substantiated.

The process of argumentation should be studied as a procedure for providing weighty and persuasive reasons to justify the chosen legal position (claim, defence, or resolution). While Western legal theory places emphasis on procedural models of rational discourse, domestic doctrine addresses the issue of rationality in legal decision-making mainly through the prism of requirements for judicial reasoning and the evaluation of evidence. This approach makes it possible to trace how general theoretical constructions of practical rationality are transformed into specific standards of judicial activity.

Drawing on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular with regard to the application of the Engel criteria, the importance of predictability and internal consistency of argumentation for ensuring the rule of law is demonstrated. The author proposes a comprehensive analysis of approaches to legal argumentation that combines logical correctness, discursive justification, and the evaluation of evidence, with an emphasis on the role of rational argumentation in reducing the arbitrariness of discretionary decisions. Such an approach makes it possible to systematise the elements of legal decision-making and to outline prospects for improving the quality and legitimacy of judicial decisions through the enhancement of procedures of argumentation and reasoning.

It is concluded that legal argumentation functions as an institutional mechanism for transforming a discretionary act of will into an act of reasoned judgment.

Keywords: legal argumentation, law enforcement, rationality, justification, discretion.

 References

  1. Britannica. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/rationality (accessed 10.12.2025 р.).
  2. Suchasne suspilstvo: filosofsko-pravove doslidzhennia aktualnykh problem: O. H. Danylian, O. P. Dzoban, S. B. Zhdanenko ta in.; za red. O. H. Danyliana. 2-he vyd., pererob. ta dopov. Kharkiv: Pravo, 2017. 416 s. (in Ukr.).
  3. Aleksi Rozumnist prava. Filosofiia prava i zahalna teoriia prava. 2013. № 2. S. 229–239. DOI: https://doi. org/10.21564/2227-7153.2013.2.183397 (in Ukr.).
  4. Stelmach J., Brozek B. (2006). Methods of Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 78. Springer, The Netherland. 236 p. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4939-0.
  5. MacCormick (1986). The Limits of Rationality in Legal Reasoning. In: An Institutional Theory of Law. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7727-4_10
  6. Peczenik (2009). Rationality of Legal Reasoning. In: On Law and Reason. Law and Philosophy Library, vol Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8730-1_3
  7. Frank , Bix B. H. (2017). Law and the modern mind. Routledge. 448 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203787533
  8. Hutcheson C. (1929). The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the Hunch in Judicial Decision, Cornell L.Q. 14. P. 274–287.
  9. dʼAlmeida L. D., Chang R., Bermejo-Luque L., MacDonald E., & Shecaira F. P. (Eds.). (2025). Research Handbook on Legal Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved Feb 22, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803925431
  10. Manko D. H. Yurydychni tekhnolohii ta alhorytmy formalizatsii prava u vymiri yurydychnoi diialnosti: monohrafiia. Odesa: Feniks, 2019. 320 s. (in Ukr.).
  11. Vandzhurak R. V. Lohiko-metodolohichni osnovy rozsudu subiektiv pravozastosuvannia. Analitychno-porivnialne pravoznavstvo. Uzhhorod, 2025. № 1. S. 897–906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2025.01.150 (in Ukr.).
  12. Dudash Dialektychnyi pidkhid do pravovoho arhumentuvannia y pravovoi arhumentatsii. Filosofiia prava i zahalna teoriia prava. 2020. Vyp. 2. S. 145–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2707-7039.2.242855 (in Ukr.).
  13. Iurkevych O. M. Ratsionalnist arhumentatsii: lohichni pravyla ta znachennia. Visnyk Natsionalnoho yurydychnoho universytetu imeni Yaroslava Mudroho. Seriia: Filosofiia, filosofiia prava, sotsiolohiia, politolohiia. Tom 1. № 48. 2021. C. 70–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2075-7190.48.224759 (in Ukr.).
  14. Dudash Pravova arhumentatsiia: zahalnoteoretychna kharakterystyka: monohrafiia. Lviv: LNU imeni Ivana Franka, 2024. 744 s. (in Ukr.).
  15. Bzova H. Pryntsyp obgruntovanosti rishen Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy: dys. … d-ra filosofii [spets. 081 / Chernivetskyi natsionalnyi universytet im. Yuriia Fedkovycha. Chernivtsi, 2021. 186 s. (in Ukr.).
  16. Lotysh T. V. Vmotyvovanist sudovykh rishen yak element prava na spravedlyvyi sudovyi rozghliad u kryminalnomu protses: dys. … d-ra filosofii spets. 081 / Natsionalnyi universytet “Ostrozka akademiia”. Ostroh, 2024. 225 s. (in Ukr.).
  17. Koziubra M. Teoriia yurydychnoi arhumentatsii ta yii osoblyvosti v konstytutsiinomu sudochynstvi. Visnyk Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy. № 6. S. 167–180 (in Ukr.).
  18. Pro vykonannia rishen ta zastosuvannia praktyky Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny: Zakon Ukrainy vid 23 liutoho 2006 roku № 3477-IV. Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy: of. veb-portal. Retrieved from: http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/anot/3477-15 (in Ukr.).
  19. Yevropeiskyi sud z prav liudyny. Rishennia u spravi «Centre for legal resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu proty Rumunii» (Case of centre for legal resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania): zaiava №47848/08. Rishennia Velykoi palaty vid 17 lypnia 2014 roku. HUDOC (ECtHR). Retrieved from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-150981 (accessed: 14.02.2026) (in Ukr.).
  20. Goss, Ryan (2025). The Engel criteria in the 21st century: irrational flexibility and deference in recent European Court of Human Rights Human Rights Law Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaf031

Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 26.02.2026
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 09.04.2026
Дата публікації: 30.04.2026

Back to contents