An approach to the “paradigmatic oppositions” between neo-constitutionalism and legal positivism
| dc.creator | Quiroz Villalobos, Milton | es |
| dc.date | 2015-12-11 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-02-05T17:25:26Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-02-05T17:25:26Z | |
| dc.description | The adoption of a theory of law not only represents a legal-philosophical stance,but also carries clear implications on a practical level. In this paper we will see themain tenets of two of the most widespread streams on this topic, representing thustwo not only different, but also opposing views on the law: Legal positivism andneoconstitutionalism.The postulates one become “paradigmatic oppositions” compared to the other. Thisis so because they affect essential areas of Law as the criterion relating to its validity,formation, the role of judges in the resolution of “difficult cases”, among others.Although each theory presented solid arguments in its defense, always leave a loopholethat is exploited by the other to be criticized. This, however, does not hide atendency to include elements proposed by the neoconstitutionalism in Law, mainlybecause of the gaps of positivism facing the demands of today’s society. Therefore,the latter has tried to remain in force through new proposals, such as the so-calledinclusive positivism or softpositivismo that, on more than one occasion is awaysignificantly from the basic ideas of positivism most widespread early last century. | en |
| dc.description | La adopción de una teoría del Derecho no solo representa una postura iusfilosófica, sino que además conlleva claras implicancias a nivel práctico.En este trabajo veremos los principales postulados de dos de las corrientes más difundidas sobre este tema, que representan, por ende, dos visiones no solo distintas, sino además opuestas sobre el Derecho: iuspositivismo y neoconstitucionalismo.Los postulados de una de ellas se convierten en “oposiciones paradigmáticas” frente a los de la otra. Esto es así pues los mismos afectan áreas esenciales del Derecho, como los referidos a su criterio de validez, conformación, papel de los jueces en la resolución de “casos difíciles”, entre otros. | es |
| dc.format | application/pdf | |
| dc.identifier | https://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/iusta/article/view/2470 | |
| dc.identifier | 10.15332/s1900-0448.2014.0041.03 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11634/63358 | |
| dc.language | spa | |
| dc.publisher | Universidad Santo Tomás, Bogotá-Colombia | es |
| dc.relation | https://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/iusta/article/view/2470/2407 | |
| dc.source | IUSTA; No. 41 (2014) | en |
| dc.source | IUSTA; Núm. 41 (2014) | es |
| dc.source | 2500-5286 | |
| dc.source | 1900-0448 | |
| dc.subject | Keywords | en |
| dc.subject | Neoconstitutionalism | en |
| dc.subject | positivism | en |
| dc.subject | principles | en |
| dc.subject | rules | en |
| dc.subject | subsumption | en |
| dc.subject | weigh | en |
| dc.subject | legitimacy | en |
| dc.subject | neoconstitucionalismo | es |
| dc.subject | positivismo | es |
| dc.subject | principios | es |
| dc.subject | reglas | es |
| dc.subject | subsunción | es |
| dc.subject | ponderación | es |
| dc.subject | legitimidad. | es |
| dc.title | An approach to the “paradigmatic oppositions” between neo-constitutionalism and legal positivism | en |
| dc.title | Un acercamento a las “oposiciones paradigmáticas” entre neoconstitucionalismo y positivismo jurídico | es |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | |
| dc.type | Artículo revisado por pares | es |