Defence of Rule-Deductivism

1. Alexy, R. (1989). A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, R. Adler and N. MacCormick trans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 224. AlexyR. 1989 A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification AdlerR. MacCormickN. trans. Oxford Oxford University Press 224 Search in Google Scholar

2. Alexy, R. (2003). On Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural Comparison. An International Journal of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Ratio Juris, 4 (16), 433. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0952-1917.2003.00244.x AlexyR. 2003 On Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural Comparison An International Journal of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. Ratio Juris 4 16 433 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0952-1917.2003.00244.x Search in Google Scholar

3. Baader, E. (1989). Vom richterlichen Urteil. Reflexionen uber das “Selbstverstandliche”. Koln: Heymann. BaaderE. 1989 Vom richterlichen Urteil. Reflexionen uber das “Selbstverstandliche” Koln Heymann Search in Google Scholar

4. Bārdiņš, G. (2016). Dialoga loma tiesas spriešanā. Rīga: Tiesu namu aģentūra. BārdiņšG. 2016 Dialoga loma tiesas spriešanā Rīga Tiesu namu aģentūra Search in Google Scholar

5. Duarte d'Almeida, L., & Claudio, M. (2017). The Structure of Arguments by Analogy in Law, Argumentation, 2(31), 359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9409-3 Duarte d'AlmeidaL. ClaudioM. 2017 The Structure of Arguments by Analogy in Law Argumentation 2 31 359 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9409-3 Search in Google Scholar

6. Duarte d'Almeida, L. (2019). On the Legal Syllogism. In Dimensions of normativity: new essays on metaethics and jurisprudence, ed. D. Plunkett, S. Shapiro, and K. Toh. New York: Oxford University Press, 335. Duarte d'AlmeidaL. 2019 On the Legal Syllogism In Dimensions of normativity: new essays on metaethics and jurisprudence ed. PlunkettD. ShapiroS. TohK. New York Oxford University Press 335 Search in Google Scholar

7. Gardner, J. (2007). Some Types of Law. In Common Law Theory, ed. D. Edlin. New York: Cambridge University Press, 51. GardnerJ. 2007 Some Types of Law In Common Law Theory ed. EdlinD. New York Cambridge University Press 51 Search in Google Scholar

8. Kelsen, H. (1949). General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. KelsenH. 1949 General Theory of Law and State Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvard University Press Search in Google Scholar

9. Kalniņš, E. (2003). Tiesību tālākveidošana. No Juridiskās metodes pamati. 11 soļi tiesību normu piemērošanā. Meļķisis E. (zin. red.). Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte, 126–205. KalniņšE. 2003 Tiesību tālākveidošana No Juridiskās metodes pamati. 11 soļi tiesību normu piemērošanā MeļķisisE. (zin. red.). Rīga Latvijas Universitāte 126 205 Search in Google Scholar

10. Larenz, K., & Canaris C. W. (1995). Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. Dritte, neu bearbeitete Auflage. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, etc.: Springer Verlag. LarenzK. CanarisC. W. 1995 Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. Dritte, neu bearbeitete Auflage Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, etc. Springer Verlag Search in Google Scholar

11. Leiter, B. (2010). Legal Formalism and Legal Realism: What Is the Issue? Legal Theory 2(16), 11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325210000121 LeiterB. 2010 Legal Formalism and Legal Realism: What Is the Issue? Legal Theory 2 16 11 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325210000121 Search in Google Scholar

12. MacCormick, N. (1978). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. MacCormickN. 1978 Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Oxford Clarendon Press Search in Google Scholar

13. MacCormick, N. (2005). Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. A Theory of Legal Reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press. MacCormickN. 2005 Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. A Theory of Legal Reasoning New York Oxford University Press Search in Google Scholar

14. Musts, J. (2022). Loģikas elementi tiesību tālākveidošanā. Jurista Vārds 4(1218), 25.01.2022. https://juristavards.lv/doc/280444-logikas-elementi-tiesibu-talakveidosana MustsJ. 2022 Loģikas elementi tiesību tālākveidošanā Jurista Vārds 4 1218 25.01.2022. https://juristavards.lv/doc/280444-logikas-elementi-tiesibu-talakveidosana Search in Google Scholar

15. Navarro, P. E., & Rodriguez, J. L. (2014). Deontic logic and Legal systems. New York: Cambridge University Press. NavarroP. E. RodriguezJ. L. 2014 Deontic logic and Legal systems New York Cambridge University Press Search in Google Scholar

16. Neimanis, J. (2004). Ievads tiesībās. Rīga: zvērināts advokāts Jānis Neimanis. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Janis-Neimanis/publication/328807991_Ievads_tiesibas_Introduction_to_law/links/5bff987e92851c63caafd868/Ievads-tiesibas-Introduction-to-law.pdf NeimanisJ. 2004 Ievads tiesībās Rīga zvērināts advokāts Jānis Neimanis https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Janis-Neimanis/publication/328807991_Ievads_tiesibas_Introduction_to_law/links/5bff987e92851c63caafd868/Ievads-tiesibas-Introduction-to-law.pdf Search in Google Scholar

17. Plotnieks, A. (2009). Tiesību teorija & juridiskā metode. Rīga: SIA Izglītības soļi. PlotnieksA. 2009 Tiesību teorija & juridiskā metode Rīga SIA Izglītības soļi Search in Google Scholar

18. R v Luffe, 8 East 193; 103 ER 316 (1807). R v Luffe, 8 East 193; 103 ER 316 (1807). Search in Google Scholar

19. Sniedzīte, G. (2010). Tiesnešu tiesību jēdziens, evolūcija un nozīme Latvijas tiesību avotu doktrīnā. Promocijas darbs. Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte. SniedzīteG. 2010 Tiesnešu tiesību jēdziens, evolūcija un nozīme Latvijas tiesību avotu doktrīnā Promocijas darbs. Rīga Latvijas Universitāte Search in Google Scholar

20. Smith v Hughes, 2 All ER 859 (1960). Smith v Hughes, 2 All ER 859 (1960). Search in Google Scholar