Un argumento en contra de la coherencia

The article proves that checkerboard statutes and incoherent jurisprudences may be justified from the perspective of political philosophy and the possibility of finding a right moral answer. Fist, it distinguishes between coherence and similar concepts such as consistency. Subsequently, it analyzes...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Molina-Ochoa, Andrés
Format: Article
Language:Spanish
Published: Universidad Libre 2010
Subjects:
Coherencia
Consistencia
Integridad
Interpretación Jurídica
Democracia Pluralista
Ronald Dworkin
Robert Alexy
Coherence
consistency
integrity
legal interpretation
pluralistic democracy
Online Access:http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=3618560
Source:Diálogos de saberes: investigaciones y ciencias sociales, ISSN 0124-0021, Nº. 33, 2010, pags. 193-217
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
Un argumento en contra de la coherencia
Summary: The article proves that checkerboard statutes and incoherent jurisprudences may be justified from the perspective of political philosophy and the possibility of finding a right moral answer. Fist, it distinguishes between coherence and similar concepts such as consistency. Subsequently, it analyzes whether coherence is justified when judges solve easy and hard cases. Finally, it discusses the advantages of incoherent laws and jurisprudences within the framework of a pluralistic democracy.

Similar Items