A considerable number of books and papers have analyzed normative concepts using new techniques developed by logicians; however, few have bridged the gap between the English legal culture and the Continental tradition in legal philosophy. This book addresses this issue by offering an introductory study on the many possibilities that logical analysis offers the study of legal systems. The volume is divided into two sections: the first covers the basic aspects of classical and deontic logic and its connections, advancing an (...) explanation of the most important topics of the discipline by comparing different systems of deontic logic and exploring some of the most important paradoxes in its domain. The second section deals with the role of logic in the analysis of legal systems by discussing in what sense deontic logic and the logic of norm-propositions are useful tools for a proper understanding of the systematic structure of law. (shrink)

We analyse the relationship between applicability and effectiveness of legal norms from a philosophical perspective. In particular, we distinguish between two concepts of applicability. The external applicability of norms refers to institutional duties; a norm N is externally applicable if and only if a judge is legally obliged to apply N to some case c. Internal applicability refers instead to the sphere of validity of legal norms. A norm N is internally applicable to actions regulated by its sphere of validity. (...) We also explore the consequences of a thesis which maintains that applicability restricts the concept of effectiveness, so that only applicable norms can be considered effective. Our analysis illustrates that a proper reconstruction of the concept of applicability is of great importance not only for understanding the concept of effectiveness but also for providing insight into the nature of law. (shrink)

In his influential paper Legal Reasons, Sources and Gaps' reprinted in The Authority of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), Raz says that legal gaps only exist when law speaks with uncertain voice or when it speaks with many voices, but there are no gaps when law is silent. In this later case, rules of closure, which are analytically true, prevent from the occurrence of gaps. According to Raz, if there is a gap in a legal system, then both the (...) claim that there is a conclusive legal reason to perform a certain action, and its negation are neither true nor false. Therefore, one of the Raz's most important contributions to the solution of the problem of legal gaps is to remark that legal discourse is not altogether governed by the principle of bivalence. However, philosophers often claim that the denial of bivalence leads to a logical inconsistency. If this claim were true, then Raz's solution to the problem of gaps would be seriously threatened. In this paper we show ‐ with the aid of a sophisticated analytical tool, i.e. von Wright's Truth Logic ‐ that the rejection of bivalence only commits us to accept the trivial conclusion that propositions can lack truth‐values. For this reason, Raz's paper can still be regarded as a good starting‐point for analyzing the relationships among norms, practical reasoning and legal gaps. However, we also show that in order to admit propositions which are neither true nor false, Raz's theses must be reformulated. Otherwise, the claim that there is no gap when law is silent would not be compatible with the rejection of bivalence. (shrink)

Una forma clásica de explicar el significado de una oración es establecer sus condiciones deverdad. Sin embargo, dado que sólo las oraciones declarativas encajan con este tipo de análisis, las oraciones (e.g. imperativas) que carecen de valor de verdad quedan fuera de este análisis. Con el objeto de evitar esta dificultad, algunas veces se ha sugerido que el cumplimiento de un imperativo les el valor semántico de I, y que este valor depende del concepto de verdad. En este artículo, explicamos (...) esta sugerencia mediante un lenguaje artificial: el lenguaje LN. Nuestra propuesta consiste en suministrar una reconstrucción del concepto de eficacia a partir de la relación de cumplimiento, analógamente a la reconstrucción del concepto de verdad a partir de la relación de satisfacción. Nuestras conclusiones principales son las siguientes: 1) el significado de una oración imperativa es establecido por sus condiciones de eficacia y 2) esta teoría del significado de los imperativos suministra una base semántica, adeucada para la lógica deóntica.A classical way of explaining the meaning of certain sentences is to establish their truth-conditions. However, since only declarative sentences fit this kind of analysis, sentences (e.g. imperatives) which lack truth-value remain outside the theory of meaning. In order to avoid this difficulty, it is sometimes suggested both that compliance with an imperative I is the semantic value of I, and that this value is dependent on the concept of truth. In this article, we explain this suggestion with the help of a constructed language: the artificial language NL. Our proposal Is to provide a reconstruction of the concept of effectiveness from the relation of compliance, on the analogy of the reconstruction of the concept of truth from the relation of satisfaction. Our main conclusions are: 1) the meaning of a imperative sentence would be established by its effectiveness-conditions and 2) this theory of meaning of imperatives would provide a semantic basis, suitable to the deontic logic. (shrink)

En este trabajo ofrezco un análisis de algunas de las ideas más importantes sostenidas por Ricardo Caracciolo en su ensayo sobre hechos y justifi cación de las decisiones judiciales. Estas tesis son: a) tesis de la aplicación posible. Las normas generales sólo se pueden aplicar a los casos que ellas regulan; b) tesis de la aplicación efectiva. Una norma general es aplicada a un hecho sólo si la premisa que describe ese hecho es verdadera. Este artículo muestra que hay buenas (...) razones para revisar ambas tesis ya que ellas pasan por alto una distinción relevante entre distintos sentidos de ‘casos individual’: casos individuales de un universo del discurso y casos individuales de un caso genérico. Como consecuencia de ello, se señala que es necesario modelar un concepto de justifi cación jurídica que no presuponga a esas mencionadas tesis. (shrink)

Este trabajo es una crítica a la distinción entre lagunas de conocimiento y reconocimiento. En Normative Systems, Alchourrón y Bulygin sostienen que estas indeterminaciones en la aplicación del derecho son problemas diferentes. Según AB, las lagunas de conocimiento surgen por nuestro deficiente conocimiento de las circunstancias del caso, pero las lagunas de reconocimiento se producen por la vaguedad del lenguaje. Para resolver las lagunas de conocimiento, los juristas usan presunciones y para resolver las lagunas de reconocimiento es preciso redefinir los (...) conceptos. Sin embargo, AB no ofrecen una reconstrucción específica de la vaguedad y ello afecta al análisis de esos tipos de lagunas. En particular, AB creen que la vaguedad es un problema epistémico y, por ello, un sistema completo puede ofrecer una respuesta correcta para cada caso individual aun cuando no podamos conocer esa solución. Pero, cuando se asume que la vaguedad es un problema epistémico, entonces no existen mayores razones para distinguir entre lagunas de conocimiento y lagunas de reconocimiento. This paper analyzes the distinction between gaps of knowledge and gaps of recognition. In Normative Systems, Alchourrón and Bulygin claim that both indeterminacies are different problems that arise in the application of general norms to individual cases. Where through ignorance of certain properties of the facts, we cannot determine whether an individual case belongs to a generic case, we speak of gap of knowledge. On the contrary, gaps of recognitions are caused by the semantic indeterminacy of the concepts which define a generic case. In order to solve gaps of knowledge, jurists use legal presumptions, but the solution of a gap of knowledge requires the redefinition of a certain concept. However, AB believe that vagueness is only an epistemic problem. For this reason, they conclude that a complete normative system resolves every possible individual case even though we can still find epistemic indeterminacies. However, this paper shows that if vagueness is characterized as an epistemic problem, there will be no relevant reason for stressing the distinction between gaps of recognition and gaps of knowledge. (shrink)

Este trabajo analiza los aspectos más destacados de la polémica entre Juan Carlos Bayón y Eugenio Bulygin acerca de las lagunas jurídicas, el principio de prohibición y el alcance de la discreción judicial. En esta disputa, Bulygin defiende cuatro tesis centrales, enunciadas en Normative Systems : una cuidadosa distinción entre normas y proposiciones normativas es esencial para resolver el problema de las lagunas jurídicas, la versión débil del principio de prohibición no sirve para mostrar que no existen lagunas, la versión (...) fuerte del principio de prohibición es verdadera solo cuando el sistema es completo, y en casos de lagunas jurídicas, los jueces tienen discreción para resolver estas situaciones. Sin embargo, Bayón señala que el problema no es la falta de distinción entre normas y proposiciones normativas sino el desacuerdo acerca de cuándo una solución jurídica es concluyente. La diferencia entre soluciones prima facie y concluyente es esencial porque en ciertas situaciones, el derecho no da una respuesta pero tampoco deja espacio para la discrecionalidad judicial. Según Bayón, en estos casos el principio de prohibición "todo lo que no está prohibido está permitido" juega un papel fundamental. Este trabajo muestra que los argumentos de Bayón son insuficientes para rechazar las tesis clásicas defendidas por Bulygin. In this paper I analyze the most relevant aspects of the controversy between Juan Carlos Bayón and Eugenio Bulygin about the existence of legal gaps, the so called "principle of prohibition" and the scope of judicial discretion. In this debate, Bulygin defends four classical theses advanced in his wellknown book, Normative Systems : a careful distinction between norms and norm propositions is actually needed in order to solve the problem of legal gaps, the analytical truth of the weak version of the principle of prohibition cannot guarantee the completeness of legal systems, the strong version of the principle of prohibition is true only if legal systems are complete, and judges have discretion in cases of legal gaps. However, Bayón claims that the problem is not the lack of distinction between norms and norm proposition but rather the identification of conclusive legal solutions. Conclusive legal solutions must be distinguished from the prima facie solutions provided by explicitly enacted norms. According to Bayón, the difference between conclusive and prima facie solutions is essential in legally irrelevant cases; in such cases the principle of prohibition plays an essential role because it entails the rejection of judicial discretion. In this paper I claim that the arguments advanced by Bayón fail to provide a sound ground for discarding the classical theses defended by Bulygin. (shrink)

In this paper, I consider some problems concerning the structure of legal systems. In order to do this, I basically analyze the promulgation and derogation of legal rules. Frequently, promulgation has been referred to as the introduction of a rule into, and derogation as the removal of a rule from, a normative system. I try to show that there is more to it than that. One of the main ideas of the paper is that the enactment or derogation of a (...) legal rule by an authority na restricts the competence of all lower authorities: Once a rule R has been enacted by an authority na, authorities inferior to na cannot remove R from the normative system; and when R has been derogated by na, lower authorities do not have the competence to introduce R into the system. Further important questions include: What happens with derogated rules? What is the structure of the set of derogated rules? When does a rule belong to a derogated set, and when is it removed from a derogated set? These questions are very important for a theory of legal systems, and I try to give some possible answers. Perhaps the main conclusion of the paper is that promulgation and derogation can be considered very similar processes with respect to legal systems. (shrink)