How the argumentation is constructed in "Commisa v Pemex"
What is it about?
The article analyses the argumentation in a legal case called "Commisa v Pemex", where an arbitration decision that was cancelled in the place where the arbitration happened is being enforced. This case is unusual because typically, when an arbitration decision is cancelled, it's not enforced. The judges in this case had to explain why they chose to prioritize the idea of "public policy" over the principle of "international comity." In simple terms, they had to justify why they thought it was more important to uphold their own country's laws and policies (public policy) rather than following the principles of international cooperation and diplomacy (international comity). The text mentions that the analysis of this decision is being done from a "pragma-dialectic approach," which is a method of studying how arguments are constructed and evaluated in a rational and persuasive way. It also talks about "Legal Argumentation Theory," which combines logical reasoning and persuasive techniques in law. In this case, the paper is interested in how communication and rhetoric are used to support the legal argument.
Why is it important?
It is an important analysis because it the text is examining how legal arguments are constructed in this unique case, including the use of persuasive language and rhetorical strategies to justify the decision to enforce the arbitration award despite it being canceled initially. It is interesting case, then, to observe the strategies a judge can use in order to present a strong argumentation in a difficult case.