The relevance of the study is determined by the fact that legal argumentation in the decisions of Ukrainian courts is frequently criticized as weak and poorly reasoned. A goal of this article is to suggest a general theoretical approach to arguing in judicial application of law as an activity that could help to improve legal argumentation. To that end, the following methodological tools were used: a dialectical approach, a general theoretical approach, a pragmadialectical approach, a method of legislation analysis, a method of analysis and reconstruction of argumentative practice, a comparative method. As a result, the following features of arguing in judicial application of law were revealed: dialogical character; instrumentality; dependence on the stage of law application; governance by rules established in a legal system; direction of its result to achieve legal consequences. This type of arguing is considered as a discourse activity carried out by particular methods and tools. Arguing at various stages of law application is analysed. The author examines rules of law-applicative arguing in the legal system of Ukraine suggesting ways of the improving. The practical value of this article consists in the fact that the analysed issues allow to outline directions for improving argumentative practice in the application of law, namely: its tools at various stages of application of law, procedural rules for arguing in the judicial application of law to ensure compliance of law-applicative argumentation with criteria for its evaluation.
Keywords: dialogical character of law-applicative arguing, instruments of law-applicative arguing, stages of judicial application of law, legal qualification of facts, rules of legal arguing, criteria of arguability of court’s decisions.