The challenge of legal interpretation
Keywords:
interpretation, argumentation, adjudicationAbstract
The judiciary is often conceived as in charge of determining the existent and content of legal duties. However, there is no agreement between legal scholars as to what is involved in that activity. There is one aspect, however, in which good part of different theories seem to coincide, to wit, that courts adjudicating cases must provide justificatory reasons for their decisions. In court rulings, the reasons that support decisions are of central importance. As our institutions are designed, we not only ask courts to decide our legal disputes, but we also require them to do so in a justified (motivated) way. But which are the legally relevant reasons in judicial adjudication? In what follows, we advance some conceptual distinctions for the analysis of these reasons. In doing so, we will focus on the challenges posed by legal interpretation. Our aim is to propose a set of tools that can serve in the evaluation of the normative premises of legal arguments, and, within them, the ones made by courts.
References
A.A.V.V. Por una justicia dialógica. El poder judicial como promotor de la deliberación democrática, GARGARELLA Roberto (comp.), Buenos Aires, Siglo XXI Editores, 2014.
ALEXY Robert, “Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality, Ratio Juris 16 (2), pp. 131-140.
ALEXY Robert, “Die Konstruction der Grundrechte”, en L. CLÉRICO E. J. SIECKMANN (eds.) Grundrechte, Prinzipien und Argumentation. Studien zur Rechtstheorie Robert Alexys, Baden Baden, 2009.
ALEXY Robert, Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung, 1979.
BAYÓN MOHINO Juan Carlos, "Derecho, convencionalismo y controversia", en Navarro, P. E. y Redondo, M. C. (eds.), La relevancia del derecho, Barcelona Gedisa, 2002, pág. 57-92.
BAYÓN MOHINO Juan Carlos, La normatividad del derecho, Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid, 1991.
BERNAL PULIDO Carlos, “Estructura y límites de la ponderación”, en Doxa 23, pp. 225-238.
CARACCIOLO Ricardo, “Paradigmas de decisión judicial,” en Revista Brasileira de Filosofía, 238, pp. 63-90.
DWORKIN Ronald, “The Moral Reading and the Majoritarian Premise” en Freedom’s Law. The Moral Reading of the American Constitution, Harvard University Press, 1996, pp. 1-59 (Hay traducción al español: “La lectura moral de la constitución y la premisa mayoritaria,” en Derecho, libertades y jueces, UNAM, 2015, pp. 227-275).
DWORKIN Ronald, Law’s Empire, Hart Publishing, 1998.
CHIASSONI Pierluigi, "Codici interpretativi: Progetto di voce per un Vademecum giuridico", Analisi e diritto, 2002-2003, 2004, pág. 55-124.
CHIASSONI Pierluigi, Técnicas de interpretación jurídica. Brevario para juristas, Madrid, Marcial Pons, 2011.
GARGARELLA Roberto, “De la alquimia interpretativa al maltrato constitucional. La interpretación del derecho en manos de la Corte Suprema Argentina”, en GARGARELLA R. (coord.) Teoría y crítica del derecho constitucional, tomo I, Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires, 2008, pp. 233-247.
GARGARELLA Roberto, ALVAREZ MEDINA Silvina Y IOSA Juan, Acciones privadas y constitución, Rubinzal Culzoni, 2021.
GUASTINI Riccardo, Interpretare e argomentare, Milán, Giuffré, 2011. Hay traducción al español de traducción al castellano de S. Alvarez, Interpretar y argumentar, Madrid, Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, 2014.
GUASTINI Riccardo, "El escepticismo ante las reglas replanteado", Discusiones, 11, 2012, pág. 27-58.
HART Herbert, “Discretion,” en 127 Harvard Law Review 652.
HART Herbert, The Concept of Law, segunda edición, Oxford University Press, 1994 [1961]. Hay traducción al español de la primera edición de Genaro Carrió, El concepto de derecho, Buenos Aires, Abeledo-Perrot, 1963.
HART Herbert, “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Feb., 1958), pp. 593-629.
HIMMA Kenneth Einar, Derecho y moral. El debate entre el positivismo incluyente y el excluyente, Bogotá, Universidad Externado, 2011.
KENNEDY Duncan, A Critique of Adjudication (fin de siècle), Cambridge, Ma. - Londres, Harvard University Press, 1997.
LACEY Nicola, “The Path not Taken. H. L. A. Hart’s Harvard Essay on Discretion” 127 Harvard Law Review 636.
MARMOR Andrei, Social Conventions. From Language to Law, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2009.
MOORE Michael S., Objectivity in Ethics and Law, Aldershot,, Ashgate, 2004.
NINO, Carlos Santiago, Fundamentos de derecho constitucional, Buenos Aires, Astrea, 1992.
OLIVECRONA Karl, Law as Fact, Londres, Oxford University Press, 1939 (hay traducción al español de Gerónimo Cortés Funes, El derecho como hecho, Buenos Aires, Depalma, 1959).
WALTON William, et al., Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
RAZ Joseph, Practical Reasons and Norms, Oxford University Press, 1975 (second edition, 1999).
REDONDO Cristina, La noción de razón para la acción en el análisis jurídico, Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid, 1996.
RODRIGUEZ Jorge, Razonamiento y decisión judicial. La justificación de decisiones judiciales en las democracias constitucionales, Programa de formación en áreas de vacancia de la abogacía, 2017, http://www.saij.gob.ar/docs-f/ediciones/libros/razonamiento-decision-judicial_rodriguez.pdf
SAGÜÉS Nestor, “Interpretación constitucional y alquimia constitucional (el arsenal argumentativo de los tribunales supremos), JA 2003-IV-1220
SCHIAVELLO Aldo, Il positivismo giuridico dopo Herbert Hart, Turín, Giappicchelli, 2004.
SHAW Geoffrey, “H. L. A. Hart’s Lost Essay: Discretion and the Legal Process School”, 127 Harvard Law Review 666.
SCALIA Antonin, “Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws,” en A Matter of Interpretation, Princeton University Press, 1997, pp. 3- 47.
SOLUM Lawrence B., “The Fixation Thesis: The Original Meaning of the Constitutional Text”, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 91, 2015.
SUNSTEIN Cass, “Incompletely Theorized Agreement in Constitutional Law”, University of Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper N 147/2007
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
