http://hdl.handle.net/10256/8060 Mon, 12 May 2025 05:52:36 GMT 2025-05-12T05:52:36Z http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26216 Una propuesta de deliberación posible en el ámbito parlamentario = A feasible proposal for deliberation in the Parliamentary context Fernández Blanco, Carolina The work addresses the importance of parliamentary discussion, especially focusing on the instrumental contributions that an improvement in parliamentary debates could promote in areas such as the evaluation of laws, the quality of laws, empirical legitimacy, and the constitutional control that some courts carry out regarding the way parliamentary discussion unfolds. A deliberation model is proposed that would favor the improvement of the epistemic quality of parliamentary discussion. This model is feasible to be promoted in parliaments as it does not require regulatory changes, does not contradict the principle of representation, can be carried out by an 'operationally rational' legislator, and is compatible with the negotiation activities presumed necessary in the political-parliamentary sphere. The proposed idea of possible deliberation focuses on elements of deliberation identified as formal or procedural. Finally, different contexts are presented in which the idea of possible legislation will presumably be more or less encouraged Fri, 26 Jan 2024 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26216 2024-01-26T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26114 Spiegazione funzionale e analisi concettuale. Sull’incidenza dei modelli economici nello studio della pratica giuridica Papayannis, Diego M. In this article I assess the importance of economic models in the interpretation and general explanation of law. I distinguish between a conceptual explanation, that takes into account the internal point of view, and a functional explanation that focuses mainly on the beneficial effect that legal institutions provide for the communities that hold them. I argue that economic models have no direct bearing on interpretation nor on conceptual explanations of the nature of law, but they can play a very significant role in functional explanations Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26114 2013-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26110 La Objeción de conciencia en el marco de la razón pública Papayannis, Diego M. Sobre la objeción de conciencia en sociedades liberales, demoráticas y plurales Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26110 2008-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26079 ¿Deberían todos los aplicadores del derecho ser competentes para ponderar? Una discusión pendiente = Should all judges be competent to do balancing? A pending discussion García Yzaguirre, Víctor The article presents the scope and implications of discourses that offer a response to the question of whether all, some, or any judge should be competent to carry out balancing as a means of creating an exception to a rule or distinguishing a precedent. It also analyzes which risks should be evaluated to determine: i) who should have the competence to resolve an axiological gap; and ii) if it should be limited competence or not (and what type of limits to regulate). To do this, it presents in what type of cases balancing is used, what it means that a judge is competent to do balancing, what risks such competence produces and, finally, it proposes risk management models based on how the competence norm is designed; El artículo presenta los alcances e implicaciones de los discursos que ofrecen respuesta a la pregunta de si todos, algunos o ningún aplicador del derecho deberían ser competentes para realizar ponderaciones como forma de crear una excepción a una norma o realizar un distinguish a un precedente. Asimismo, analiza cuáles son los riesgos que deben evaluarse para determinar: i) quiénes deben tener la competencia para resolver una laguna axiológica; y ii) si debe ser una competencia limitada o no (y qué tipo de límites regular). Para ello, presenta en qué tipo de casos se emplea la ponderación, qué quiere decir que un aplicador del derecho es competente para ponderar, qué riesgos produce dicha competencia y, finalmente, propone modelos de administración de riesgos en función a cómo se diseñe la norma que otorga competencia para ponderar Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/10256/26079 2024-12-11T00:00:00Z