Territorial Claims as a Limitation to the Right of Self-Determination in the Context of the Falkland Islands Dispute

This Note will trace the development and present status of the right to self-determination under international law and its applicability to the decolonization of the Falkland Islands. No attempt will be made to determine whether Argentina\u27s claim to sovereignty over the Islands is valid. The focus will be, rather, on whether the right of self-determination as set out by the United Nations can be limited and superseded by competing territorial claims

On the Philosophical Preconditions for Visual Arguments

The question is what are the preconditions for being able to rephrase visual objects in propositional form and consequently in argumentational terms. The idea is to identify the fundamentals of a linguistic-semiotic analysis of visual objects, which rest on philosophical notions in logic, linguistics and aesthetics

Visual Objects as Part of a Rational Communication Process

In order for visual objects to be fully integrated in argumentation studies, we should be able to show how some visual objects can be part of a rational communication process and be analyzed as part of rational activity, where audiences reason their way to intentions and beliefs via their recognition of the arguer\u27s intention to produce such results. This paper will focus on the way to enable the embedment of some visual objects in argumentation theory

Argumentation as an ethical and political choice

The paper\u27s two theses are: First, that the historical and philosophical roots of argumentation are in ethics and politics, and not in any formal ideal, be it mathematical, scientific or other. Furthermore, argumentation is a human invention, deeply tied up with the emergence of democracy in ancient Greece. Second, that argumentation presupposes and advances concurrently humanistic values, especially the autonomy of the individual to think and decide in a free and uncoerced manner

A Wittgensteinian Approach to Rationality in Argumentation

The central supposition of the sceptical controversy regarding rationality in the theory of argumentation is that either there are universal standards against which the reasonableness of arguments can be evaluate or, conversely, that there are no determinate standards against which arguments can be evaluated, and hence no methods by which disputes can be rationally resolved. The paper argues that the basic terms of this debate are erroneously defined and that there is a middle path in this sceptical controversy. The paper adopts the later Wittgensteinian approach to language and applies it to the concept of rationality. Furthermore, it maintains that the search for universal standards of reasonableness in theories of argumentation is likely to come to naught, and that, nonetheless, there are discoverable methods by which arguments are evaluated, facts constituted, and disputes resolved

The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument

This presentation traces an historical root of the reductio ad absurdum mode of argumentation in Greek philosophy. I propose a new understanding of the liar paradox as an instance of this mode of argumentation. I show that the paradox was crea ted as part of a refutational argument in the controversy over the justification of realism and the realists concepts of truth and certainty. The paradox was part of the dialectical style of Greek scepticism, which was characterized, inter alia, by the u se of the reductio ad absurdum. The paradox turns out to be a metaphysical and epistemological argument