ABSTRACT
Chapter 2 explains the differences and relationship between methods of interpretation and the argumentative tools used by the European Court of Human Rights. It divides these argumentative tools into three categories. The first encompasses those tools that refer to external authority – an entity or environment in which the decision is taken. Among this category, the chapter highlights arguments that refer to external law sources or to the margin of appreciation and those that rely on epistemic authority. The second category, described as deontological and based on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, includes arguments from incrementalism, proceduralisation, and those referring to the plasticity and assimilation of concepts. The third category uses consequentialist arguments in morally sensitive cases by examining and assessing secondary effects. The division is largely based on the methods observed and described in rhetoric, that is the art of argumentation. Different argumentative tools introduced in the chapter are illustrated with relevant examples in later chapters concerning cases on medically assisted procreation, abortion and end-of-life situations.
