Falsos dilemas del neoconstitucionalismo
With the arrival of the constitutional State, some discussions have been presented and renewed in front of the theory of law with antagonistic positions and in the key of a dilemma. At one extreme would be a conception that proposes a model of rules, subsumption, separation between law and morality,...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6766712 |
| Source: | Estudios de derecho, ISSN 0120-1867, Vol. 74, Nº. 163, 2017, pags. 19-46 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| Summary: |
With the arrival of the constitutional State, some discussions have been presented and renewed in front of the theory of law with antagonistic positions and in the key of a dilemma. At one extreme would be a conception that proposes a model of rules, subsumption, separation between law and morality, primacy of legislation over jurisprudence and a science of descriptive law; while, at the other extreme, there would be a conception that defends a model of principles, consideration, right and moral linkage, primacy of jurisprudence over legislation and a science of prescriptive law. These poles are the two paradigms that the national doctrine wants to face as opposing theories of law corresponding to the before and after the 1991 Constitution, when the relationship between the models is not really dichotomous nor exclusive, but rather of continuation and complementation, as it will develop in this article. |
|---|