argumentation that can be approved as a basis for the decision. In this case, the argumentation may only be a facade. With facade argumentation one tries to formulate arguments so that the interpretation appears justifiable without a real interpretation resulting from the arguments. The dagogical function means that the decision must be argued so that it is easy to understand and adopt. (4)These four functions make their own perspectives to argumentation. In this article, the classification of the functions is not however, a central point. Accordingly, argumentation is entirety. However, it is very useful to know what different dimensions argumentation can have, because these tell why argumentation is necessary There can be many different types of argument. For example, Robert Alexy presents a list: there can be semantic, genetic, historical, comparative, systematic and teleological arguments. (5)Aulis arnio offers a different kind of list: semantic, syntactic, logical, juridical and teleological arguments, as well as value, analogy and e contrario arguments (6)If we look closely at Alexy's and Aarnio's lists and their contents. it can be noticed that the differences between these lists are not so remarkable. This makes an important point: argumentation can be systematised in different d researchers can name the same types of argument differently. To provide more examples, ay look, for example, at the book Interpreting Statutes. In this book-which compares the retation of statutes in nine countries-the list of argument types is divided into four main groups: linguistic, systematic, teleological and intentional arguments (7) This list is, in general similar neither to Alexy's nor to Aarnio's categorisation. Nevertheless, looking more closely, one can see that this listing is also very similar to the other two However, the name of the argument type is not the most essential in this case. The most important thing is to clarify what type of argument could be used in the argumentation process substantively It is very clear that similar types of argument are used in different countries. My own list of argument types comprises grammatical, historical, systematic, doctrinal, comparative and teleological arguments. I will very briefly explain what I mean by these, since there is not enough space here to explain them thoroughly. With grammatical argument I point to an argument that is based on the text that is interpreted. Historical arguments are arguments that can be found from the travaux preparatoires of the statutory law. In this case, one should be able to find the intent of the egislator. Systematic arguments can be found from the logical relations of a norm to other norms of the legal order. That kind of argument is, for example, analogical argument. The use of systematic arguments requires a view of the legal order as a sy stem, which is probably not always an easy task. Doctrinal arguments are systematic arguments, actually, but I think that they can be separated for the sake of a better understanding of the subject. Doctrinal arguments can be found in a different kind of practice; this may be court practice, but also the practice of some other state body which has made decisions and interpretations, for example, for many decades. Comparative arguments are mainly arguments from foreign law, which can be a foreign legal order or legal system. It is also possible to use international treaties as comparative arguments. Teleological arguments can be based on different kinds of purposes. In the interpretation process this means that the interpretation should be made such that the aim of the norm will be realised. An interpretation should, of course, be made with an objective mind. The teleological method is the best way of arriving at an authoritative interpretation of the normargumentation that can be approved as a basis for the decision. In this case, the argumentation may only be a 'facade'. With facade argumentation one tries to formulate arguments so that the interpretation appears justifiable without a real interpretation resulting from the arguments. The pedagogical function means that the decision must be argued so that it is easy to understand and adopt.(4) These four functions make their own perspectives to argumentation. In this article, the classification of the functions is not, however, a central point. Accordingly, argumentation is conceived in its entirety. However, it is very useful to know what different dimensions argumentation can have, because these tell why argumentation is necessary. There can be many different types of argument. For example, Robert Alexy presents a list: there can be semantic, genetic, historical, comparative, systematic and teleological arguments.(5) Aulis Aarnio offers a different kind of list: semantic, syntactic, logical, juridical and teleological arguments, as well as value, analogy and e contrario arguments.(6) If we look closely at Alexy's and Aarnio's lists and their contents, it can be noticed that the differences between these lists are not so remarkable. This makes an important point: argumentation can be systematised in different ways and researchers can name the same types of argument differently. To provide more examples, one may look, for example, at the book Interpreting Statutes. In this book - which compares the interpretation of statutes in nine countries - the list of argument types is divided into four main groups: linguistic, systematic, teleological and intentional arguments.(7) This list is, in general, similar neither to Alexy's nor to Aarnio's categorisation. Nevertheless, looking more closely, one can see that this listing is also very similar to the other two. However, the name of the argument type is not the most essential in this case. The most important thing is to clarify what type of argument could be used in the argumentation process substantively. It is very clear that similar types of argument are used in different countries. My own list of argument types comprises grammatical, historical, systematic, doctrinal, comparative and teleological arguments. I will very briefly explain what I mean by these, since there is not enough space here to explain them thoroughly. With grammatical argument I point to an argument that is based on the text that is interpreted. Historical arguments are arguments that can be found from the travaux préparatoires of the statutory law. In this case, one should be able to find the intent of the legislator. Systematic arguments can be found from the logical relations of a norm to other norms of the legal order. That kind of argument is, for example, analogical argument. The use of systematic arguments requires a view of the legal order as a system, which is probably not always an easy task. Doctrinal arguments are systematic arguments, actually, but I think that they can be separated for the sake of a better understanding of the subject. Doctrinal arguments can be found in a different kind of practice; this may be court practice, but also the practice of some other state body which has made decisions and interpretations, for example, for many decades. Comparative arguments are mainly arguments from foreign law, which can be a foreign legal order or legal system. It is also possible to use international treaties as comparative arguments. Teleological arguments can be based on different kinds of purposes. In the interpretation process this means that the interpretation should be made such that the aim of the norm will be realised. An interpretation should, of course, be made with an objective mind. The teleological method is the best way of arriving at an authoritative interpretation of the norm