La decisión judicial y las reglas de la argumentación desde la teoría de la argumentación de Neil Maccormick
The purpose of this research is to approach to Neil MacCormick’s argumentation theory, which is part of the tradition of the law of English origin, which in turn is drawn from the empiricism. In its nuclear elements (principle of universality, coherence, consistency and consequentialist arguments),...
| Autor Principal: | León Scarpeta, Sara Natalia |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | Paredes Escobar, María Juliana |
| Formato: | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| Idioma: | spa |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de San Buenaventura - Cali
2017
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: |
http://hdl.handle.net/10819/4966 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: |
The purpose of this research is to approach to Neil MacCormick’s argumentation theory, which is part of the tradition of the law of English origin, which in turn is drawn from the empiricism. In its nuclear elements (principle of universality, coherence, consistency and consequentialist arguments), MacCormick’s theory of argumentation, determines parameters that lead to reasonable legal decision, pursuant to a bivalence between dogmatic demands own rules, legal principles and real-world experiences. In understanding this theory should be noted that the key role is the study of easy and difficult cases. The use of practical reason leads us to think in logical arguments or formal correctness or in practical human actions that lead to achieving not justify arbitrary arguments, in the court decision. Finally, a critical analysis is performed to determine if these parameters set forth in MacCormick’s theory of argumentation, are sufficient for a correct ruling. |
|---|