The article is devoted to the analysis of schemes of the structure of juridical argumentation as models demonstrating the internal construction of juridical argumentation and the existing connections of legal arguments with each other and with theses of juridical argumentation. We analyzed, first of all, schemes of simple juridical argumentation, in which one legal thesis is supported or refuted by one or more legal arguments. It is concluded that schemes of complex juridical argumentation - those where two or more legal theses are supported or refuted - can represent combinations of schemes of simple juridical argumentation. It is proposed to distinguish between schemes of the structure of juridical argumentation and schemes of argumentative reasoning. The former are graphic models demonstrating the construction of a single argumentation procedure for substantiating or refuting one (for simple legal argumentation) or several (for complex legal argumentation) legal theses, while the latter are models for obtaining a single plausible conclusion. The scheme of structure of juridical argumentation can coincide with the argumentative reasoning scheme or be transformed into several argumentative reasoning schemes. If the scheme of structure shows the construction of the argumentation, then the argumentative reasoning schemes shows the following of the conclusion from the premises.
|
