¿Desacuerdo sin acuerdo? Una crítica a la propuesta metalingüística de Plunkett y Sundell
The problem of legal disagreements can be approached in different ways. On one version, the problem arises because positivism assumes that legal concepts are criteriological, thus conceiving of disagreement among lawyers as pointless and a mere verbal dispute. Plunkett and Sundell have offered a nov...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2016 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Pompeu Fabra |
| Repositorio: | Repositorio Digital de la UPF |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/72250 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10230/72250 http://dx.doi.org/10.5347/44.2016.64 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Desacuerdos jurídicos Dworkin negociaciones metalingüísticas Pragmática Legal disagreements Metalinguistic negotiations Pragmatics |
| Sumario: | The problem of legal disagreements can be approached in different ways. On one version, the problem arises because positivism assumes that legal concepts are criteriological, thus conceiving of disagreement among lawyers as pointless and a mere verbal dispute. Plunkett and Sundell have offered a novel response to this criticism, which holds that it is not necessary to share a concept in order to disagree. In this paper I analyze this response and I offer a number of objections against it. |
|---|