Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof: Confrontational Strategies in Dealing with Political Accountability

Corina Andone 1
  • 1 University of Amsterdam & ILIAS


In this paper, the author examines the burden of proof in the argu- mentative confrontations taking part in practices of political accountability. She does so by explaining how politicians maneuver strategically with the burden of proof in an attempt at winning the discussion in which they are involved. After making clear the role of the burden of proof in defining the difference of opinion in argumentative confrontations, the author outlines the constraints imposed by practices of political accountability on the burden of proof. Finally, she analyzes in detail a concrete case in which a politician maneuvers in such a way that his burden of proof is significantly diminished.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in Political Interviews. Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Andone, C. (2014). The burden of proof in practices of political accountability. In Saftoiu, R., I. Neagu & S. Mada (Eds.), Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue. (forthcoming). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Bovens, M. (2006). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal 13(4), 447-468.

  • Curtin, D. (2007). Holding (quasi-) autonomous EU administrative actors to public account. European Law Journal 13(4), 523-541.

  • Curtin, D. & Nollkaemper, A. (2005). Conceptualizing accountability in international and European Law. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law XXXVI, 3-20.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van & Garssen, B. (2011). Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring Argumentative Contexts (pp. 43-58). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van & R. Grootendorst (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumenta- tion. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van & P. Houtlosser. (2002). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-dialectics (pp. 13-28). Amsterdam/Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/Vale Press.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argu- mentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2008). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. Journal of Pragmatics 20, 475-493.

  • Houtlosser, P. (2002). Indicators of a point of view. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-dialectics (pp. 169-184). Amsterdam/Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/Vale Press.

  • Kauffeld, F. J. (2007). The burden of proof: A macro or a micro level concept? In H. Hansen & R. Pinto (Eds.), Reason Reclaimed (pp. 65-73). Newport News, Virginia: Vale Press.

  • Montgomery, M. (2007). The Discourse of Broadcast News. A Linguistic Approach. London/New York: Routledge.

  • Mulgan, R. 2003. Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democra- cies. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Oliver, D. (2009). Executive accountability: A key concept. In L. Verhey, Ph. Kiiver & S. Loeffen (Eds.), Political Accountability and European Integration (pp. 9-31). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.

  • Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics. A Controversy-oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany: State Universiy of New York Press.

  • Rescher, N. (2006). Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Shackleton, M. (1998). The European Parliament’s new committees of inquiry: Tiger or paper tiger? Journal of Common Market Studies 36(1), 115-130.

  • Strøm, K. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37, 261-289.

  • Tomkins, A. (2008). Political accountability in the United Kingdom. In L. Verhey, H. Broeksteeg & I. van den Driessche (Eds.), Political Accountability in Europe: Which Way Forward? (pp. 243-269). Europa Law Publishing.

  • Tseronis, A. (2009). Qualifying Standpoints. Stance Adverbs as a Presentational Device for Managining the Burden of Proof. Utrecht: LOT.

  • Verhey, L. (2009). Political accountability: A useful concept in EU inter-institutional relations? In L. Verhey, Ph. Kiiver & S. Loeffen (Eds.), Political Ac- countability and European Integration (pp. 55-70). Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.

  • Wonka, A. (2007). Technocratic and independent? The appointment of European Commissioners and its policy implications. Journal of European Public Pol- icy 14(2), pp. 169-189.


Journal + Issues