Partial proceedings of the 17th World Congress, International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, Bologna, 1995.

Some important ideas in Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law can be traced back to Kantian tradition, which has been very influential in Kelsen's thought, particularly in his early period. Among them we find the distinction between two radically different worlds (the world of facts and the world of norms), the normativity of legal science and the idea of validity as a binding force, based on the famous doctrine of the basic norm. These tenets and, especially, the use of a normative (...) concept of validity prove to be incompatible with Kelsen's positivistic programme of a value‐free legal science. The science of law cannot state that legal norms are obligatory or binding without trespassing the limits of Kelsen's ideal of a legal science; on the other hand, it is possible to define the concept of a legal system without resorting to the basic norm. So, if Kelsen is to be regarded as a consequent positivist, the Kantian ingredients of his theory must be rejected and the descriptive concept of validity as membership must be substituted for the normative notion of validity as a binding force. (shrink)

This paper criticizes Alexy's argument on the necessary connection between law and morality. First of all, the author discusses some aspects of the notion of the claim to correctness. Basically, it is highly doubtful that all legal authorities share the same idea of moral correctness. Secondly, the author argues that the claim to correctness is not a defining characteristic of the concepts of “legal norm” and “legal system”. Hence, the thesis of a necessary connection between law and morality based on (...) such claim cannot be accepted. (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)

Las respuestas que siguen abarcan los demás trabajos que fueron presentados en SADAF, y otros que fueron enviados ulteriormente. No siguen el orden de los expositores, ni el orden en que redacté las respuestas. Más bien, aparecen en la forma elegida por el editor para adecuarlas a su distribución en los dos números de Análisis Filosófico. No queda excluida la posibilidad de que, al redactarlas, yo haya recurrido en primer término a aquellas críticas que me parecieron más destructivas, sin que (...) esto implique que les haya atribuido a esos trabajos mayor importancia que a los demás. Agradezco a todos los autores su participación en esteintercambio de ideas. (shrink)

Norms conferring public or private powers, i.e., the competence to issue other norms, play a very important rôle in law. But there is no agreement among legal philosophers about the nature of such norms. There are two main groups of theories, those that regard them as a kind of norms of conduct (either commands or permissions) and those that regard them as non-reducible to other types of norms. I try to show that reductionist theories are not quite acceptable; neither the (...) command-variety (Kelsen, Alf Ross inOn Law and Justice), nor the permission-variety (von Wright, Kanger, Lindahl) provide a satisfactory account of competence norms.Among the authors who maintain that competence norms are different from (and hence not reducible to) norms of conduct are Hart, Ross inDirectives and Norms, and Searle. Ross and Searle distinguish between regulative and constitutive rules as two radically different kinds of rules and classify competence norms among constitutive rules. This distinction runs parallel to von Wright's distinction between rules that are prescriptions and determinative rules. While the first regulate actions (by commanding, prohibiting, or permitting them), determinative rules define certain concepts. To view competence norms as (partial) definitions of certain legal concepts (like those of legislator, judge, etc.) seems to open interesting perspectives and to shed light on at least one aspect of these elusive norms. (shrink)

Eugenio Bulygin is a distinguished representative of legal science and legal philosophy as they are known on the European continent - no accident, given the role of the civil law tradition in his home country, Argentina. Over the past half-century, Bulygin has engaged virtually all major legal philosophers in the English-speaking countries, including H.L.A. Hart, Ronald Dworkin, and Joseph Raz. Bulygin's essays, several written together with his eminent colleague and close friend Carlos E. Alchourrón, reflect the genre (...) familiar from Alf Ross's On Law and Justice, Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law, and Georg Henrik von Wright's Norm and Action. Bulygin's wide-ranging interests include most of the topics found under the rubric of analytical jurisprudence - interpretation and judicial reasoning, validity and efficacy of law, legal positivism and the problem of normativity, completeness and consistency of the legal system, the nature of legal norms, and the role of deontic logic in the law. The reader will take delight in the often agreeably unorthodox character of Bulygin's views and in his hard-hitting arguments in defence of them. He challenges the received opinion on gaps in the law, on legal efficacy, on permissory norms, and on the criteria for legal validity. Bulygin's essays have been wellnigh inaccessible in the past, appearing in specialized journals, often in Spanish or German. They are now available for the first time in an English-language collection. (shrink)

According to Raz there are no legal gaps originating in the silence of law. Such graps require that there should be no reason to perform an action and no conclusive permission to omit that action. Raz claims that such a situation leads to a contradiction and hence is impossible. This means that all legal systems are necessarily complete.In this paper I argue that the Razian argument against gaps begs the question, the concept of conclusive permission is inadequate for characterizing completeness (...) and gaps and must be replaced by a stronger notion, and legal gaps due to the absence of legal regulations are possible and hence the problem of completeness of legal systems is an empirical question that cannot be solved by logical means alone. (shrink)

En uno de los ataques más reiterados a Darwin, que todavía subsiste en la literatura actual, se señala que la teoría de la selección natural es tautológica, analítica o, al menos, irrefutable. En docenas de artículos, diversos autores han señalado las condiciones en que la selección natural quedaría refutada, intentando mostrar que no carece de contenido empírico. La estrategia seguida en este trabajo será otra. Teniendo en cuenta que la crítica de tautologicidad o irrefutabilidad ha sido esgrimida contra leyes fundamentales (...) de otras teorías, insertaré la discusión en un marco metateórico más amplio. Para discutir el estatus del segundo principio de la mecánica clásica, Moulines introduce el concepto de "principio guía". Los principios guía no serían contrastables directamente, sino a través de especializaciones. Desde mi punto de vista, considerar a la selección natural como principio guía permitiría explicar por qué muchos la han considerado tautológica y cómo esto no implica vacuidad. One of the most repeated objections to Darwin, still present in contemporary literature, outlines that theory of natural selection is tautological, analytical or at least irrefutable. There are many authors that point out the conditions in which natural selection would be refuted, trying to prove that it doesn't lack of empirical content. This essay will work on a different strategy. Taking into account that tautological or irrefutable criticism has been put forward against other theories' fundamental laws; I will insert the argumentation in a wider theoretical frame. To argue about the status of the second principle about classic mechanical Moulines introduces the 'guiding principle' concept. The guiding principles wouldn't be directly contrastable. The only way in which they could be contrastable would be through special laws. From my point of view natural selection, considered as the guiding principle, would explain why many thinkers had considered it a tautology and how this does not imply vacuity. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that the rationality of law and legal decision making would be enhanced by a systematic attempt to recognize and respond to the implications of empirical uncertainty for policy making and decision making. Admission of uncertainty about the accuracy of facts and the validity of assumptions relied on to make inferences of fact is commonly avoided in law because it raises the spectre of paralysis of the capacity to decide issues authoritatively. The roots of this short-sighted (...) view are found in primitive mechanical models of relationships in the empirical and social world – those of objective causality and determinism. Insofar as it is believed that if we had sufficient data a clear and unequivocal answer would be available to each question, admission of uncertainty is seen as a sign of insufficiency, incompetence, impotence, and is avoided whenever a decision that must be seen to be based on valid reasons, cannot be avoided. Avoidance of some decisions, duplicity in others, is the result. -/- Decision-making must be restructured to recognize the provisional and context-bound validity and relevance of the models we use to conceptualize and order our understanding of phenomena, and to utilize this awareness as an instrument in the production of legal policies and decisions that will be authoritative precisely because they are honestly accurate and socially responsible. The paper makes a start on such a re-structuring of the legal process by exploring the implications of the observation that if law is to be “just”: 1) legal policy must be based on accurate information and rationally related to social goals; and 2) decisions applying policy to individual fact situations must be based on assumptions that are both relevant and accurate. -/- Reasons for determinations of fact must be given, otherwise the presumption that the trier of fact is “reasonable” is an unconditional licence to use private modes of logic and theories of social and natural science. What is not disclosed cannot be challenged on grounds of invalidity or irrelevance. -/- Use of “objective validity” as a standard to evaluate conclusions made by the trier of fact in contentious cases would only serve to beg all important questions by concealing: 1) fundamental normative conflict, and 2) the limited nature and applicability of many validity claims. -/- Our use of the phrases “undue risk,” “public interest,” “reasonable,” and “necessary,” reflects the weight we choose to give conflicting social values and goals when we must make decisions in relative ignorance of all the consequences. “Objective criteria” are of limited utility in legal decision-making because their social meaning is derivative. Policy generation in the absence of any coherent conceptual-normative framework, use of vague terminology in legislation stating policy, and the absence of rational means to distinguish between individual cases to which decision-makers are required by law to apply policy, make it inevitable that many legal “decisions” made in the guise of determinations of objective fact, are charades, an arbitrary, capricious, intuitive, subjective (and thus private) use of public decision-making power. -/- Law must alter its aspirations and recognize that rational decision-making is a process that can occur only within parameters set by present knowledge and societal preference structures. Only by working with the constraints imposed by these parameters is it possible to achieve “just” decisions. Where no rational basis for differentiating cases exists, “individualized justice” must be avoided and public policy articulated in law applied uniformly to all cases in a class. The terms “reasonable” and “necessary,” used to describe policy and its consequences for specific cases, must be understood to represent provisional societal assessments, attempts to implement societal preference structures in the face of limited knowledge. Heightened awareness of the limited nature of our knowledge can only result in legal policies that have a more explicit normative basis. -/- The volume is is published with an introduction by Michael D. Bayles. It is available in hardback, paperback, and as an ebook. (shrink)

"Proceedings of the 11th IVR World Congress on Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy... held on August 14-20, 1983 in Helsinki"--Introd.

The human intestines are constantly under the influence of numerous pathological factors: enteropathogenic microorganisms, food antigens, physico‐chemical stress associated with digestion and bacterial metabolism, therefore it must be provided with a system of protection against adverse impact. Recent studies have shown that Paneth cells play a crucial role in maintaining homeostasis of the small intestines. Paneth cells perform many vital functions aimed at maintaining a homeostatic balance between normal microbiota, infectious pathogens and the human body, regulate the qualitative composition and (...) number of intestinal microorganisms, prevent the introduction of potentially pathogenic species, and protect stem cells from damage. Paneth cells take part in adaptive and protective‐inflammatory reactions. Paneth cells maintain dynamic balance between microbial populations, and the macroorganism, preventing the development of intestinal infections and cancer. They play a crucial role in gastrointestinal homeostasis and may be key factors in the etiopathological progression of intestinal diseases. (shrink)

The essay briefly review the intellectual bonds between Alchourrón and Bulygin and Italian legal thought. Alchourrón and Bulygin’s seminal work is widely read in Italy; and by now is considered essential groundwork by a growing generation of young legal scholars.

En este trabajo confrontamos la posición de Bulygin acerca de las normas con la del escéptico semántico y la del incorporacionista. entendemos a ambas figuras como expresiones -matizadas- de dos enfoques generales respecto del comportamiento en base a reglas: a) el que no ve en este más que "decisiones arbitrarias", meras reacciones o hábitos de conducta, y b) el que asimila la explicación de lo normativo con el ajuste a reglas o principios. Ahora bien, la noción general de (...) class='Hi'>Bulygin que concibe a las normas como proposiciones o entidades conceptuales, parece -paradójicamente- rozar el escepticismo cuando se enfrenta a la imposibilidad de listar en forma completa las excepciones implícitas en la formulación de una regla. Proponemos una concepción alternativa basada en la noción de que el significado se muestra en el "uso", entendido este como el dominio de una técnica que constituye una "práctica social", en la cual reside un tipo de corrección práctica que no depende de justificaciones explícitas, sino de un trasfondo no expreso que hace irreductible a una teoría la aplicación de normas jurídicas. We contrast Bulygin's position on rules against that of the semantic skeptic and the inclusionist. We understand these two positions as in some sense expressing two general approaches on behavior according to rules: a) the first one stating that ruled behavior is no more than "arbitrary decisions," mere reactions or behavioral habits, and b) the second one explaining everything normative as actions adjusted to rules or principles. Bulygin's general notion according to which rules are propositions or conceptual entities paradoxically seems to be close to a skeptic position when facing the impossibility of completely listing implicit exceptions when formulating a rule. We propose an alternative conception based on the notion that meaning is shown in use, understanding by "use" the mastering of a technique that constitutes a social practice, in which resides a sort of correction practice. This correction does not depend on explicit justifications but on an unexpressed background which makes impossible a theory of legal application of rules. (shrink)

In this article the author adduces a non‐positivist argument for a necessary connection between law and morality; the argument is based on the claim to correctness, and it is directed to an attack stemming from Eugenio Bulygin. The heart of the controversy is the claim to correctness. The author first attempts to show that there are good reasons for maintaining that law necessarily raises a claim to correctness. He argues, second, for the thesis that this claim has moral implications. (...) Finally, he attempts to refute Bulygin's objection that the claim‐based argument for non‐positivism boils down to contradiction and triviality. (shrink)

Con el objeto de dar cuenta de la dinámica del derecho, Alchourrón y Bulygin distinguen los conceptos de sistema jurídico y de orden jurídico. El primero hace referencia a un conjunto de enunciados que contiene todas sus consecuencias deductivas, entre las cuales hay normas cuyo contenido son actos coactivos. Se trata de una entidad estática. El orden jurídico, por su parte, es concebido como una secuencia de sistemas jurídicos enlazados por algún criterio de legalidad o validez, y conserva su (...) identidad a través de los cambios producidos por la sanción o derogación de normas. Es mi propósito presentar argumentos tendientes a sostener que la noción de orden jurídico no es adecuada para los fines que se propone y, además, su postulación, con el sentido que le atribuyen los autores, resulta innecesaria. Aiming to account for the dynamic nature of law, the Argentinian philosophers Carlos Alchourrón and Eugenio Bulygin discriminate the concepts of legal system and legal order. The first makes reference to a set of statements that includes all their deductive consequences, among which there are norms that prescribe coercive acts. It is a static entity. legal order, on the other hand, is conceived as a sequence of legal systems connected by some criterion of legal validity and keeps its identity through the changes produced by the passing or abrogation of laws. The aim of this paper is to present arguments leading to support that the notion of legal order is inadequate for its declared purpose and, furthermore, its conception, with the meaning the authors assign to it, is unnecessary. (shrink)

En este trabajo analizo la concepción de Eugenio Bulygin respecto de aquellos enunciados jurídicos que afirman que una cierta acción es jurídicamente obligatoria, prohibida o permitida. Conforme a Bulygin, estos enunciados son ambiguos. Ellos pueden ser enunciados empíricos externos que afirman la existencia o validez de una norma, o pueden ser enunciados normativos internos que expresan una norma, o una actitud moral absoluta. En el trabajo sostengo que, para una concepción positivista, si el derecho es concebido como un (...) conjunto de normas, los enunciados bajo análisis no enuncian un hecho empírico, pero tampoco expresan una actitud moral absoluta. Ellos ciertamente enuncian un hecho normativo: la validez o existencia jurídica de una entidad normativa, que es relativa a un determinado tiempo y lugar. En mi opinión, la dificultad de Bulygin para admitir este tipo de enunciados se debe fundamentalmente a la presuposición de una falsa dicotomía entre dos modos en los que una entidad puede existir: uno empírico y otro normativo. Con el fin de criticar esta aparente dicotomía presento brevemente una concepción constructivista de la existencia de normas. Si mi razonamiento es correcto, esta concepción es adecuada para explicar, desde una perspectiva teórica positivista, aquellos enunciados que expresan el hecho normativo de la existencia o validez jurídica de una norma. In this paper I analyze Bulygin's conception of those legal statements asserting that a certain action is legally obligatory, prohibited or permitted. According to Bulygin, these statements are ambiguous. They can be external, empirical statements expressing the existence or validity of a legal norm, but they can also be internal, normative statements expressing a norm or an absolute, moral attitude. In the paper I attempt to defend that for a positivist theory, if law is conceived as a set of norms, this kind of statements do not report an empirical fact, but do not express an absolute moral attitude either. They surely assert a normative fact: the legal existence or validity of a normative entity, which is relative to a certain time and place. In my view, Bulygin's failure to see this point is fundamentally due to the assumption of a false dichotomy between two ways in which an entity can exist: one empirical, the other normative. In order to criticize this apparent dichotomy, I briefly sketch a constructivist conception in which we can say that legal norms exist. If my reasoning is correct, this conception is apt to explain those statements expressing the normative fact that a norm exists or is legally valid. (shrink)