A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms

Autores
Redondo, Maria Cristina
Año de publicación
2013
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
In this paper I analyze Bulygin’s conception of those legal statements asserting that a certain action is legally obligatory, prohibited or permitted. According to Bulygin these statements are ambiguous. On the one hand, they can affirm the existence or validity of a legal norm in a descriptive sense. In this case they are external statements expressing empirical propositions. On the other hand, they can assert the existence or validity of a norm in an absolute or moral sense, in which case, they are internal (neither true nor false) statements that express a norm or a moral attitude towards it. In the paper I attempt to defend that for a positivist theory, if law is conceived as a set of norms, statements asserting that a certain action is legally permitted or prohibited do not report an empirical fact but do not report the moral or absolute validity of a norm either. They surely assert a normative fact: the legal existence or validity of a normative entity. Nevertheless, this sense of existence or validity depend on human behavior and is relative to a given time and place. I take into account four considerations presented by Bulygin in support of his rejection of this kind of statements expressing internal, normative proposition. In my view, Bulygin’s rejection is fundamentally due to his strict conception of what it means to assume an internal point of view but, even more, it is due to the admission of a false dichotomy between two ways in which an entity can exist: one empirical (relative), the other normative (absolute). In order to criticize this apparent dichotomy, I briefly sketch a constructivist conception in which we can say that legal norms exist. If my reasoning is correct, this conception is one that a positivist legal theory can offer in order to explain internal statements expressing normative facts or propositions.
Fil: Redondo, Maria Cristina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Materia
Existence of Legal Norms
Legal Validity
Legal Statements
Normative Propositions
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/26754

id CONICETDig_adcf247d1b97c5a162f3e2c12d568ec8
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/26754
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling A Constructivist Conception of Legal NormsRedondo, Maria CristinaExistence of Legal NormsLegal ValidityLegal StatementsNormative Propositionshttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.5https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5In this paper I analyze Bulygin’s conception of those legal statements asserting that a certain action is legally obligatory, prohibited or permitted. According to Bulygin these statements are ambiguous. On the one hand, they can affirm the existence or validity of a legal norm in a descriptive sense. In this case they are external statements expressing empirical propositions. On the other hand, they can assert the existence or validity of a norm in an absolute or moral sense, in which case, they are internal (neither true nor false) statements that express a norm or a moral attitude towards it. In the paper I attempt to defend that for a positivist theory, if law is conceived as a set of norms, statements asserting that a certain action is legally permitted or prohibited do not report an empirical fact but do not report the moral or absolute validity of a norm either. They surely assert a normative fact: the legal existence or validity of a normative entity. Nevertheless, this sense of existence or validity depend on human behavior and is relative to a given time and place. I take into account four considerations presented by Bulygin in support of his rejection of this kind of statements expressing internal, normative proposition. In my view, Bulygin’s rejection is fundamentally due to his strict conception of what it means to assume an internal point of view but, even more, it is due to the admission of a false dichotomy between two ways in which an entity can exist: one empirical (relative), the other normative (absolute). In order to criticize this apparent dichotomy, I briefly sketch a constructivist conception in which we can say that legal norms exist. If my reasoning is correct, this conception is one that a positivist legal theory can offer in order to explain internal statements expressing normative facts or propositions.Fil: Redondo, Maria Cristina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaMarcial Pons2013-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/mswordapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/26754Redondo, Maria Cristina; A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms; Marcial Pons; Analisi e Diritto; 2013; 12-2013; 185-1961126-5779CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://revistas.marcialpons.es/fichaarticulo.php?id_articulo=2631info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:44:32Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/26754instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:44:33.109CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms
title A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms
spellingShingle A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms
Redondo, Maria Cristina
Existence of Legal Norms
Legal Validity
Legal Statements
Normative Propositions
title_short A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms
title_full A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms
title_fullStr A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms
title_full_unstemmed A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms
title_sort A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Redondo, Maria Cristina
author Redondo, Maria Cristina
author_facet Redondo, Maria Cristina
author_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Existence of Legal Norms
Legal Validity
Legal Statements
Normative Propositions
topic Existence of Legal Norms
Legal Validity
Legal Statements
Normative Propositions
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.5
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv In this paper I analyze Bulygin’s conception of those legal statements asserting that a certain action is legally obligatory, prohibited or permitted. According to Bulygin these statements are ambiguous. On the one hand, they can affirm the existence or validity of a legal norm in a descriptive sense. In this case they are external statements expressing empirical propositions. On the other hand, they can assert the existence or validity of a norm in an absolute or moral sense, in which case, they are internal (neither true nor false) statements that express a norm or a moral attitude towards it. In the paper I attempt to defend that for a positivist theory, if law is conceived as a set of norms, statements asserting that a certain action is legally permitted or prohibited do not report an empirical fact but do not report the moral or absolute validity of a norm either. They surely assert a normative fact: the legal existence or validity of a normative entity. Nevertheless, this sense of existence or validity depend on human behavior and is relative to a given time and place. I take into account four considerations presented by Bulygin in support of his rejection of this kind of statements expressing internal, normative proposition. In my view, Bulygin’s rejection is fundamentally due to his strict conception of what it means to assume an internal point of view but, even more, it is due to the admission of a false dichotomy between two ways in which an entity can exist: one empirical (relative), the other normative (absolute). In order to criticize this apparent dichotomy, I briefly sketch a constructivist conception in which we can say that legal norms exist. If my reasoning is correct, this conception is one that a positivist legal theory can offer in order to explain internal statements expressing normative facts or propositions.
Fil: Redondo, Maria Cristina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
description In this paper I analyze Bulygin’s conception of those legal statements asserting that a certain action is legally obligatory, prohibited or permitted. According to Bulygin these statements are ambiguous. On the one hand, they can affirm the existence or validity of a legal norm in a descriptive sense. In this case they are external statements expressing empirical propositions. On the other hand, they can assert the existence or validity of a norm in an absolute or moral sense, in which case, they are internal (neither true nor false) statements that express a norm or a moral attitude towards it. In the paper I attempt to defend that for a positivist theory, if law is conceived as a set of norms, statements asserting that a certain action is legally permitted or prohibited do not report an empirical fact but do not report the moral or absolute validity of a norm either. They surely assert a normative fact: the legal existence or validity of a normative entity. Nevertheless, this sense of existence or validity depend on human behavior and is relative to a given time and place. I take into account four considerations presented by Bulygin in support of his rejection of this kind of statements expressing internal, normative proposition. In my view, Bulygin’s rejection is fundamentally due to his strict conception of what it means to assume an internal point of view but, even more, it is due to the admission of a false dichotomy between two ways in which an entity can exist: one empirical (relative), the other normative (absolute). In order to criticize this apparent dichotomy, I briefly sketch a constructivist conception in which we can say that legal norms exist. If my reasoning is correct, this conception is one that a positivist legal theory can offer in order to explain internal statements expressing normative facts or propositions.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-12
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/26754
Redondo, Maria Cristina; A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms; Marcial Pons; Analisi e Diritto; 2013; 12-2013; 185-196
1126-5779
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/26754
identifier_str_mv Redondo, Maria Cristina; A Constructivist Conception of Legal Norms; Marcial Pons; Analisi e Diritto; 2013; 12-2013; 185-196
1126-5779
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://revistas.marcialpons.es/fichaarticulo.php?id_articulo=2631
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/msword
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Marcial Pons
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Marcial Pons
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613401603473408
score 13.069144