The Logical Structure of Legal Justification: Dialogue or “Trialogue”?

摘要: In this paper the author discusses question of adequacy use contemporary dialogical models as logical tools for analysis, representation and evaluation legal argumentation, especially justification. Despite fundamental attractiveness binary structure those models, it seems that their in modelling justification urges us to consider status third element which enters interaction two parties: represents function judge or arbiter it. paper, central place is given possible actual arguments pro contra inclusion third, judicial basic structure. Finally, “pro” are found outweighing, because fact role guarantees not only termination controversy according standards, but also proper dialogue rules by parties context, possibility subversive behavior constantly being open.