The role of legal argumentation and human dignity in constitutional courts: proceedings of the special workshops held at the 28th World Congress of the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy in Lisbon, 2017

Intro -- Contents -- Introduction -- Part I: The Role of Legal Argumentation in Constitutional Courts -- Giovanni Damele: Naturalistic Argument and Appeal to Common Sense in Constitutional Argumentation -- Rachel Herdy: Appeals to Expert Opinion in High Courts -- Fernando Leal: "Less is More": Against Argumentative Saturation in Legal Decision-Making -- Thomas Bustamante: Abusive Obiter Dicta: A Typology of Illegitimate Judicial Pronouncements -- Chiara Valentini: Rights, Proportionalism and Inclusive Adjudication -- Alberto Puppo: Local Priority in Constitutional Argumentation: Threat or Healthy Contribution to International Law? -- Part II: The Use of Human Dignity within Judicial Argumentation -- Miguel Nogueira de Brito: Is there Any Absolute Concept of Dignity? -- Pedro Moniz Lopes: Interpretative and Normative Ambivalences of Human Dignity: Rights, Dignity and Morality in Fleming V Ireland -- Jorge Silva Sampaio: Human Dignity's Contestedness, Analytical Reconstruction of the Prohibition of Instrumentalization and a Reassessment of the Aviation Security Act Case -- Mariana Melo Egídio: The Argument from Human Dignity - Legal Paternalism and Restriction on Fundamental Rights -- Editors and Contributors.