Legal argumentation theory is a cross-disciplinary research field where theoretical tools for analyzing and evaluating legal argumentation are developed and applied. Due to its cross-disciplinary nature, legal argumentation theory has become a meeting point for scholars with a background in argumentation theory, logic, artificial intelligence, rhetoric, legal theory, cognitive psychology, communication studies and many other disciplines. This volume brings together two theoretical approaches to legal argumentation theory: the first approach is based in general argumentation theory and contributes to the study of legal argumentation by developing general argumentation theory in application to law, the second approach is based in legal theory and contributes to the study of legal argumentation by developing legal theory with regard to argumentation. The chapters in this volume illustrate how research from one approach complements research from the other approach, and show how they can be fruitful for each other. The papers that belong to the first approach take their point of departure in the analysis of a certain kind of argument, a specific argumentation fallacy, a rhetorical strategy or in certain rules for a rational discussion, and apply this theoretical analysis to legal argumentation. Each of the first four contributions concentrates on a specific form of argument: the argument from consequences, the argument ad absurdum, the argument from precedent and the argument ad hominem. The authors propose an integration of ideas from argumentation theory and legal theory to develop tools for analyzing and evaluating arguments of this kind in legal argumentation.