Legal formalism: a comparison between Jori and Schauer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201702.003Keywords:
legal formalism, Mario Jori, Frederick Schauer, legal rule, legal reasoning, legal texts, interpretation, defeasibility, constitutional legal ordersAbstract
This essay examines and juxtaposes Mario Jori’s and Frederick Schauer’s ideas on legal formalism. Although developed independently of each other, these ideas show remarkable similarities: both focus on the notion of norm or rule as a tool for clarifying the notion of legal formalism; both defend legal formalism from the criticisms routinely moved against it. The author maintains that Jori’s and Schauer’s theories may contribute to shed light on (and criticize) the controversial notion of defeasibility of legal rules; they may also contribute to scale down, from a legal-theoretical point of view, the novelties of contemporary constitutional orders; finally, it may help to better understand their working machinery.
Downloads
References
Alexander, L. & Schauer, F. (2007). Law’s Limited Domain Confronts Morality’s Universal Empire. William and Mary Law Review, 48(5), 1579-1603. Recuperado de http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol48/iss5/4
Atienza, M. & Ruiz Manero, J. (2000). Ilícitos atípicos. Madrid: Trotta.
Atienza, M. & Ruiz Manero, J. (2012). Rules, Principles, and Defeasibility. En J. Ferrer Beltrán y G.B. Ratti (Eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility (pp. 238-253). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atria, F. (2001). On Law and Legal Reasoning. Portland: Hart.
Barberis, M. (2002). On Canonically Formulated Norms: Schauer’s Three Stances. Notizie di Politeia, 18(66), 181-196.
Barberis, M. (2011). Manuale di filosofia del diritto. Turín: Giappichelli.
Crisafulli, V. (1964). Disposizione (e norma). En Enciclopedia del diritto, XIII. Milán: Giuffrè.
Conte, E. (2016). La fuerza del texto: Casuística y categorías del derecho medieval. Madrid: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
Duarte D’Almeida, L. (2015). Allowing for Exceptions: A Theory of Defences and Defeasibility in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Londres: Duckworth.
Dworkin, R. (1984). Los derechos en serio. M. Guastavino (trad.). Barcelona: Ariel.
Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1988). El imperio de la justicia. C. Ferrari. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. & Ratti, G.B. (2012a). Defeasibility and Legality: A Survey*. En J. Ferrer Beltrán y G.B. Ratti (Eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility (pp. 11-38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. & Ratti, G.B. (Eds.). (2012b). The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fioravanti, M. (2016). Il legislatore e i giudici di fronte alla costituzione. Quaderni Costituzionali, 36(1), 7-20. doi: 10.1439/82801
Hart, H.L.A. (1983). American Jurisprudence through English Eyes: the Nightmare and the Noble Dream. En Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy (pp. 123-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jori, M. (1980). Il formalismo giuridico: Milán: Giuffrè.
Jori, M. (1992). Formalismo giuridico. Digesto delle discipline privatistiche: Sezione civile, VIII. Turín: Utet.
Jori, M. (1993). La cicala e la formica. En L. Gianformaggio (Ed.), Le ragioni del garantismo: Discutendo con Luigi Ferrajoli. Turín: Giappichelli.
Jori, M. (1995). Formalismo giuridico. En M. Jori y A. Pintore (Eds.), Manuale di teoria generale del diritto. 2.a ed. Turín: Giappichelli.
Jori, M. (2009). Interpretazione e creatività: il caso della specialità. Criminalia. Annuario di scienze penalistiche, 4, 211-246. Recuperado de http://www.edizioniets.com/criminalia/2009/005D_JORI.pdf
Jori, M. (2010). Del diritto inesistente. Pisa: ETS.
Jori, M. (2014a). A partire da un libro di Aurelio Gentili, osservazioni su interpretazione, metagiurisprudenza, argomentazione come discorso e su quello che fanno o dovrebbero fare i giuristi. Diritto & Questioni Pubbliche, 14, 260-319.
Jori, M. (2014b). Del derecho inexistente: El sentido común en la teoría del derecho. Lima: Palestra.
Jori, M. (2016). Legal Pragmatics. En A. Capone y F. Poggi (Eds.), Pragmatics and Law: Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 33-60). Dordrecht: Springer.
La Torre, M. (2007). Constitutionalism and Legal Reasoning: A New Paradigm for the Concept of Law. Dordrecht: Springer.
Luzzati, C. (en prensa). Scale e serpenti, anzi: scale mobili e bilance. Una riflessione positivistica sulla defeasibility.
Luzzati, C. (1990). La vaghezza delle norme. Milán: Giuffrè.
Luzzati, C. (2012). Príncipi e princípi: La genericità nel diritto. Turín: Giappichelli.
Luzzati, C. (2013). El principio de autoridad y la autoridad de los principios: La genericidad del derecho. P. Luque (trad.). Madrid-Barcelona-Buenos Aires-Sao Paulo: Marcial Pons.
Luzzati, C. (2016). Del giurista interprete: Linguaggio, tecniche, dottrine. Turín: Giappichelli.
MacCormick, N. (2005). Arguing Defeasibly. En Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scalia, A. (1989). The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules. The University of Chicago Law Review, 56(4), 1175-1188. Recuperado de http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol56/iss4/1
Scalia, A. (1997). A Matter of Interpretation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schauer, F. (en prensa). Law’s Boundaries. Harvard Law Review.
Schauer, F. (1988). Formalism. The Yale Law Journal, 97(4), 509-548. doi: 10.2307/796369
Schauer, F. (1991a). Playing by the Rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schauer, F. (1991b). Rules and the Rule of Law. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 14(3), 645-694.
Schauer, F. (1998). On the Supposed Defeasibility of Legal Rules. Current Legal Problems, 51(1), 223-240. doi: 10.1093/clp/51.1.223
Schauer, F. (2003). Profiles, Probabilities and Stereotypes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schauer, F. (2004a). Las reglas en juego: Un examen de la toma de decisiones basadas en reglas en el derecho y en la vida cotidiana. C. Orunesu y J. Rodríguez (trads.). Madrid-Barcelona: Marcial Pons.
Schauer, F. (2004b). The Limited Domain of the Law. Virginia Law Review, 90(7), 1909-1956. doi: 10.2307/1515650
Schauer, F. (2009). Thinking Like a Lawyer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schauer, F. (2012). Is Defeasibility an Essential Property of Law?. En J. Ferrer Beltrán y G.B. Ratti (Eds.), The Logic of Legal Requirements: Essays on Defeasibility (pp. 77-88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schauer, F. (2013). Pensar como un abogado: Una nueva introducción al razonamiento jurídico. T. Schleider (trad.). Madrid-Barcelona-Buenos Aires-Sao Paulo: Marcial Pons.
Tur, R. (2001). Defeasibilism. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 21(2), 355–368. doi: 10.1093/ojls/21.2.355
Velluzzi, V. (Ed.). (2000). Significato letterale ed interpretazione giuridica. Turín: Giappichelli.
Velluzzi, V. (Ed.). (2012). L’abuso del diritto: Teoria, storia, ambiti disciplinari. Pisa: ETS.
Velluzzi, V. (2016). L’abuso del diritto dalla prospettiva della filosofia giuridica. En G. Visintini (Ed.), L’abuso del diritto (pp. 163-176). Nápoles: ESI.
Zagrebelsky, G. (1992). Il diritto mite: Legge diritti giustizia. Turín: Einaudi.
Zagrebelsky, G. (1995). El derecho dúctil: Ley, derechos, justicia. M. Gascón (trad.). Madrid: Trotta.
Zorzetto, S. (2013). The Language of Legal Rules: Some Notes about Plain-Meaning in Law. L’Ircocervo. Recuperado de http://www.lircocervo.it/index/pdf/2013_1/2013_1_LEGISLAZIONE_2_Zorzetto.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Derecho PUCP
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
