Lógica jurídica. Front Cover. Ulrich Klug. Ed. Sucre, – Filosofia del derecho – pages Bibliographic information. QR code for Lógica jurídica. Lógica Jurídica Ulrich Klug – Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. Get this from a library! Logica Juridica. [Ulrich Klug].
|Published (Last):||2 February 2012|
|PDF File Size:||14.96 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.50 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
You can give to any conclusion a logical form. Introduction Breaking the chains that have law and legal education bounded to a traditional model and the necessity of unleashing all its potential, is part of the wider call for breaking the walls, which, by the by, has proved to be more than a great metaphor since it is actually possible to do it as it has been manifest after twenty-five years of the fall of the wall in Berlin.
The fact that these reasons are provided by an institutional authority is not enough to justify its application to the case at hand, and hence additional reasons are required. In a nutshell, the adjudicative or judicial function is more an interpretative-argumentative product rather than inventive-legislative, as Dworkin puts it: If there is an identical reason-and even juridicaa reasons- between the cases of “dogs”, “bears” and other “animals”, the formula must be applicable to them.
Actually, as Kennedy pointed out: Certainly, someone can claim that in the event of the legislators wanted to prohibit passing with “bears”, they should have included them next to “dogs”, or else, introduce a more ample or generic formula such as “animals”, “animals with certain size”, “dangerous animals” or “animals that may affect the passengers and their well being”. As you can see the previous example reinforces the idea that law cannot be a mere applicative model but an argumentative ulich.
Actually, the meaning of the word ‘conclude’ is “deduct or derive a judgment from other propositions, including judgments”. They learn elementary case analysis, meaning the art of generating broad holdings for cases, so they will apply beyond their ulricch scope, and narrow holdings for cases, so that they won’t apply where it at first seemed they would.
In that sense, it is not surprising that the legal logic, or more properly the general logic as applied to law, has become increasingly popular, ever since its reappearance in mid-twentieth century. Let me clarify that the Corpus Iuris Civilis comprised: My hunch is that neither the emperor that promulgated the code nor the jurists commissioned to do the codification considered law as an applicative model, but limited themselves to systematize the maxims contained in such decisions to serve as a guiding criteria or precedent for future cases, but that after a while became considered as the law itself.
Hence, its must neither be overstated nor understated. Atienza M, Las razones del derecho. Methods and Ulrichh5: January 07, ; Accepted: Thus, we can also conclude: On the contrary, the formula “dangerous animals” is fortunate despite being still a vague expression since it provides a justification not only for the prohibition of those animals that may affect the passengers and their well being for posing a real or eminent threat due to the fact of being intrinsically perilous and representing a risk by creating conditions of incommodity, insalubrities, and insecurity, but also for the exception to the rule, i.
Both kinds are based in a syllogism, i. Likewise, I will kpug to insist that law has always been klu argumentative model, regardless of being considered for some time, especially in the context of the great codifications, from Justinian to Napoleon, as a mere applicative one.
The law exists to juridicca realized. And so, after inquiring about the relationship between legal education and legal philosophy for some time now, I have come to terms with the discussion on whether law can be characterized as an applicative model or as an argumentative one.
In the case of legal argumentation it results that the reasons in favor and against are not exclusively formal but material as well. A titanic k,ug realized paradoxically in only four months.
Lógica Jurídica by Aurora Pérez Fernández on Prezi
Introduction to Legal Logic30 which was published, inthe same year that Juridifa Henrik von Wright and Ulrich Klug published their first articles and books on deontic or modal logic and legal logic, 31 and even before authors such as Georges Kalinowski.
In Fuller’s voice “The correction of obvious legislative errors or oversights is not to supplant the legislative will, but to make that will effective”.
It is evident that from the fact that a person is a “poet” it does not follow that he is an “imbecile” or vice versa. The basic experience is of double surrender: It is also clear that regardless of the intentions of the French emperor, the members of the commission neither conceive the code nor the law as a merely applicative model, and much less do they pretend it was perfect, but perfectible as any other human endeavor. However, this reasoning begins with an openly false premise, i. Since it is necessary to provide further reasons to ground the claim that the norm is applicable or not, and even that it is the general rule or the exception to it which is the applicable to the case at hand.
Lógica jurídica – Ulrich Klug – Google Books
Is Law an Ulricu Model? Rather we must start teaching-learning law as an argumentative model, which creates a solution to the problem at hand by attributing meaning or sense to a norm. It is neither, thus, the abstract content of the laws, nor the justice written on the paper, nor the morality of the words, which decide the value of a right; the objective realization of law in the life, the energy through which what is known hlrich proclaimed as necessary is followed and executed, here lies what consecrates the law its truth value.
On the contrary, the latter reasoning is not incontrovertible, irrefutable and undeniable, but controvertible, refutable and deniable; it cannot be out of question, because they are neither certain nor proved but probable, since by definition the conclusion follows from propositions which are merely probable and as such are subject of the Dialecticswhich comprises: Theory of Legal Argumentation Aristotle in his Treatise of Logicwell known as Organon 22 distinguished between two kinds of reasoning: From Application to Argumentation Although the idea of law as something to be applied strictly and so recreated by a purely deductive mode of reasoning has been unpopular for some time now, it seems that most legal professors and scholars keep teaching law as already settled and not as a matter to be settled.
Breaking the chains that have law and legal education bounded to a traditional model and the necessity of unleashing all its potential, is part of the wider call for breaking the walls, which, by the by, has proved to be more than a great metaphor since it is actually possible to do it as it has been manifest after twenty-five years of the fall of the wall in Berlin.
Actually, as the Digest contemplates: So, from two premises protesis one necessarily arrives to a conclusion.
The concept “human being” is the meson or medius terminusand the concepts “Socrates” and “mortal” are the two extremi. Provided that it is forbidden to pass to the subway or train with dogs, which constitute a danger or represent an unnecessary risk to the well being of the passengers.
Lalor trans, Callaghan and Company On the other hand, logical-dynamical reasons include: In the case at hand, the head of the police commits a fallacy and falls into what is a pseudo-reasoning, which seems to be a valid reasoning but is not: