Show simple item record

Judicial function in constitutional domains: A theoretical framework for assessing judicial reasoning in constitutional courts in south america [Função judicial em domínios constitucionais: Um referencial teórico para avaliar o raciocínio judicial em Tribunais Constitucionais da América do Sul]

dc.contributor.authorRestrepo A.F.M
dc.contributor.authorGiraldo L.D.P.
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-31T21:07:18Z
dc.date.available2024-07-31T21:07:18Z
dc.date.created2023
dc.identifier.issn23595639
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11407/8536
dc.descriptionConstitutional courts are influenced to some degree by politics. Still, when assessing their judicial decisions, most of the legal community in South America tends to adopt a narrow, normative, and legalistic perspective, lacking empirical and interdisciplinary approaches enriched by sociological and psychological perspectives. This paper reports some elements to surpass this mainstream perspective by departing from the rational acceptability thesis. The scope of the work is limited to a descriptive and normative sphere, and the method used is qualitative. © 2023, Universidade Federal do Parana. All rights reserved.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal do Parana
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85188931688&doi=10.5380%2frinc.v10i3.89470&partnerID=40&md5=7c3ebf37fdd80c3dc3970b34ccb81ed2
dc.sourceRevista de Investigacoes Constitucionais
dc.sourceRev. Investig. Const.
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectConstitutional reasoningeng
dc.subjectDiscoveryeng
dc.subjectJudicial functioneng
dc.subjectJudicial reasoningeng
dc.subjectJustificationeng
dc.titleJudicial function in constitutional domains: A theoretical framework for assessing judicial reasoning in constitutional courts in south america [Função judicial em domínios constitucionais: Um referencial teórico para avaliar o raciocínio judicial em Tribunais Constitucionais da América do Sul]eng
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.publisher.programDerechospa
dc.type.spaArtículo
dc.identifier.doi10.5380/rinc.v10i3.89470
dc.relation.citationvolume10
dc.relation.citationissue3
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad de Derechospa
dc.affiliationRestrepo, A.F.M., Universidad Libre, Pereira, Colombia, Fundación Universitaria del Área Andina, Bogotá, Colombia
dc.affiliationGiraldo, L.D.P., Universidad de Medellín, Medellín, Colombia
dc.relation.referencesAarnio, A., (1987) The Rational as Reasonable -A Treatise on Legal Justification, , Dordrecht: Springer
dc.relation.referencesAarnio, A., (2011) One Right Answer?, pp. 165-176. , In: AARNIO, Aulis, Dordrecht: Springer
dc.relation.referencesAlexy, R., (2010) A Theory of Legal Argumentation - the Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, , Oxford: Oxford University Press
dc.relation.referencesAtienza, M., (2007) Las Razones Del Derecho. 3ª Reim., , Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
dc.relation.referencesBarak, A., The Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy. (2002) Hastings Law Journal, San Francisco, 53 (5), pp. 1205-1216. , https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3495&context=hastings_law_journal, Available at
dc.relation.referencesBarnett, R.E., Interpretation and Construction (2010) Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Cambridge, 34 (1), pp. 65-72. , https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/10/Barnett-Final-1.pdf
dc.relation.referencesBellamy, R., (2013) The Democratic Qualities of Courts: A Critical Analysis of Three Arguments. Representation, [S.L.], 49 (1), pp. 333-346. , http://hdl.handle.net/1814/32375, Available at
dc.relation.referencesBellamy, R., Democracy as Public Law: The Case of Rights. (2013) German Law Journal, Frankfurt, 14 (8), pp. 1017-1037. , https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200002145, Available at
dc.relation.referencesBennett, H., Broe, G.A., Judicial Decision-Making and Neurobiology: The Role of Emotion and The Ventromedial Cortex in Deliberation and Reasoning (2010) Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, London, 42 (1), pp. 11-18. , https://doi. org/10.1080/00450610903391457
dc.relation.referencesBickel, A.M., (1986) The Least Dangerous Branch. the Supreme Court at the bar of Politics, , New Haven: Yale University Press
dc.relation.referencesBurley, A.-M., Mattli, W., Europe before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration (1993) International Organization, 47 (1), pp. 41-76. , https://doi:10.1017/S0020818300004707, Available at
dc.relation.referencesChow, S.J., Many Meanings of ‘Heuristic.’ (2014) The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, [S.L.], 66 (4), pp. 977-1016. , https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axu028, Available at
dc.relation.referencesCohen-Eliya, M., Porat, I., Proportionality and The Culture of Justification (2011) American Journal of Comparative Law, 59 (2), pp. 463-490. , https://doi.org/10.5131/AJCL.2010.0018
dc.relation.referencesComanducci, P., Legal Interpretation: A Tentative Report (2000) The Reasonable as Rational?: On Legal Argumentation and Justification. “Festschrift” for Aulis Aarnio, pp. 463-482. , In: KRAWIETZ, Werner
dc.relation.referencesSUMMERS, Robert S.
dc.relation.referencesWEINBERGER, Ota
dc.relation.referencesVON WRIGHT, Georg Henrik (Eds.), Berlín: Duncker & Humblot
dc.relation.referencesDanziger, S., Levav, J., Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. (2011) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C., 108 (17), pp. 6889-6892. , https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108, Available at
dc.relation.referencesDworkin, R., The Model of Rules (1967) University of Chicago Law Review, Chicago, 35 (1), pp. 14-46. , https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol35/iss1/3/, Available at
dc.relation.referencesDworkin, R., (1977) Taking Rights Seriously, , Cambridge: Harvard University Press
dc.relation.referencesDyevre, A., Unifying the field of comparative judicial politics: Towards a general theory of judicial behaviour. (2010) European Political Science Review., 2 (2), pp. 297-327. , https://, Available at
dc.relation.referencesDyevre, A., Jakab, A., Foreword: Understanding Constitutional Reasoning (2013) German Law Journal, Frankfurt, 14 (8), pp. 983-1015. , https://doi:10.1017/S2071832200002133
dc.relation.referencesDyevre, A., Technocracy and Distrust: Revisiting the Rationale for Judicial Review (2015) International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13 (1), pp. 30-60. , https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/13/1/30/689851
dc.relation.referencesengst, B.G., (2021) The Two Faces of Judicial Power- Dynamics of Judicial-Political Bargaining, , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan
dc.relation.referencesEpstein, L., Landes, W.M., Posner, R., (2013) The Behavior of Federal Judges- a Theoretical & Empirical Study of Rational Choice, , Cambridge: Harvard University Press
dc.relation.referencesGoodman, A., (2018) How Judges Decide Cases – Reading, Writing and Analysing Judgments. 2 Ed. London, , Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing
dc.relation.referencesGoldsworthy, J., Clarifying, Creating, and Changing Meaning in Constitutional Interpretation: A Comment on András Jakab, “Constitutional Reasoning in Constitutional Courts—A European Perspective.” (2013) German Law Journal, Frankfurt, 14 (8), pp. 1279-1295. , https://doi:10.1017/S2071832200002261, Available at
dc.relation.referencesGolecki, M.J., (2018) Judicial Reasoning from the Perspective of Behavioural Law and Economics, pp. 57-76. , BENCZE, Mátyás
dc.relation.referencesYEIN NG, Gar. How To Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning. Cham: Springer
dc.relation.referencesGreen, L., The Concept of Law Revisited (1996) Michigan Law Review, 94 (6), pp. 1687-1717. , https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol94/iss6/15, Available at
dc.relation.referencesGroppi, T., Ponthoreau, M.-C., (2013) The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges, , Oxford: Hart Publishing
dc.relation.referencesGuarneri, C., Pederzoli, P., (2020) The Judicial System – the Administration and Politics of Justice, , Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
dc.relation.referencesGuthrie, C., Rachlinski, J.J., Wistrich, A.J., Inside the Judicial Mind (2001) Cornell Law Review, Ithaca, 86 (4), pp. 777-830. , https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol86/iss4/2
dc.relation.referencesGuthrie, C., Rachlinski, J.J., Wistrich, A.J., Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases (2007) Cornell Law Review, Ithaca, 93 (1), pp. 1-44. , https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol93/iss1/9
dc.relation.referencesHarding, A., Leyland, P., Groppi, T., (2009) Constitutional Courts: Forms, Functions and Practice in Comparative Perspective, , https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jrnatila3&div=23&id=&page=, Constitutional Courts: A Comparative Study (JCL Studies in Comparative Law). London: Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing
dc.relation.referencesHarlow, J.M., (1993) Recovery from the Passage of an Iron bar through the Head. History of Psychiatry, [S.L.], 4 (14), pp. 274-281
dc.relation.referencesHartely, J., (1980) Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review, , Cambridge: Harvard University Press
dc.relation.referencesHart, H.L.A., (1994) The Concept of Law, , 2 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press
dc.relation.referencesHorwitz, P., Judicial Character (And Does it Matter) (2009) University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, 26 (1), pp. 97-167. , https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1850&context=concomm
dc.relation.referencesJakab, A., Judicial Reasoning in Constitutional Courts: A European Perspective (2013) German Law Journal, Frankfurt, 14 (8), pp. 1215-1275. , https://doi:10.1017/S207183220000225X
dc.relation.referencesJakab, A., (2016) European Constitutional Language, , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
dc.relation.referencesJakab, A., Dyevre, A., Itzcovich, G., Appendix Comparative Constitutional Reasoning, 2017, pp. 798-820. , https://doi:10.1017/9781316084281.023, JAKAB, András
dc.relation.referencesDYEVRE, Arthur
dc.relation.referencesITZCOVICH, Giulio, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Available at
dc.relation.referencesJakab, A., Dyevre, A., ITZCOVICH, Introduction: Comparing Constitutional Reasoning with Quantitative and Qualitative Methods, 2017, pp. 1-35. , https://doi:10.1017/9781316084281.023, JAKAB, András
dc.relation.referencesDYEVRE, Arthur
dc.relation.referencesITZCOVICH, Giulio. Comparative Constitutional Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Available at
dc.relation.referencesJolls, C., Sunstein, C.R., Thaler, R.H., A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics (1998) Stanford Law Review, Stanford, 50 (5), pp. 1471-1550. , https:// doi.org/10.2307/1229304
dc.relation.referencesKahneman, D., (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow, , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
dc.relation.referencesKahneman, D., Sibony, O., Sunstein, C.R., (2021) Noise - a Flaw in Human Judgment., , New York: Little, Brown Spark
dc.relation.referencesLa Torre, M., Pattaro, E., Taruffo, M., Statutory Interpretation in Italy (2010) Interpreting Statutes, pp. 213-256. , MACCORMICK, D. Neil
dc.relation.referencesSUMMERS, Robert S, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited
dc.relation.referencesLevin, J., (1992) How Judges Reason-The Logic of Adjudication, , Frankfurt: Peter Lang Publishing
dc.relation.referencesLong, R., The Role of Audience in Chaim Perelman’s New Rhetoric. (1983) Journal of Advanced Composition. [S.L.], 4, pp. 107-117
dc.relation.referencesMacagno, F., Walton, D., Arguments of statutory interpretation and argumentation schemes (2017) International Journal of Legal Discourse. [S.L.], 2 (1), pp. 47-83. , https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-0002, Available at
dc.relation.referencesMaroney, T.A., Emotional Regulation and Judicial Behavior. (2011) California Law Review, Berkeley, 99 (6), pp. 1485-1556
dc.relation.referencesMaccormick, N., (1978) Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, , Oxford: Clarendon Law Series
dc.relation.referencesMaccormick, D.N., Dworkin as Pre-Benthamite (1978) The Philosophical Review, Durham, 84, pp. 585-507
dc.relation.referencesMaccormick, D.N., Summers, R.S., Interpreting Statutes (1991) Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited, p. 2010
dc.relation.referencesMcIntyre, J., (2019) The Judicial Function – Fundamental Principles of Contemporary Judging, , Singapore: Springer
dc.relation.referencesThe Spirit of the Laws (1748) Kitchener: Batoche Books, p. 2001. , MONTESQUIEU, Charles de Secondat Baron de
dc.relation.referencesNugent, D.C., Judicial Bias, Cleveland State Law Review (1994) Cleveland, 42 (1), pp. 1-60. , https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol42/iss1/10, Available at
dc.relation.referencesPerelman, C., Olbrechtstyteca, L., (1951) Act and Person in Argument, 61 (4), pp. 251-269. , https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/290789, Ethics. Chicago
dc.relation.referencesPerelman, C., (1963) The Social Contexts of Argumentation, pp. 154-160. , PERELMAN, Chaim. The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Arguments. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
dc.relation.referencesPerelman, C., (1971) The New Rhetoric a Treatise on Argumentation, , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press
dc.relation.referencesPosner, R.A., (2010) How Judges Think, , Cambridge: Harvard University Press
dc.relation.referencesRaz, J., (2002) Sorensen: Vagueness has No Function in Law, 7 (4), pp. 417-419. , https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325201704053, Legal Theory, [s.l.], [Opens in a new window]
dc.relation.referencesRoach, A., (2021) Kathy. Judging and Emotion a Socio-Legal Analysis, , New York: Routledge
dc.relation.referencesSaba, R., (2021) La Legitimidad De Las Cortes Constitucionales., , https://www.ibericonnect.blog/2021/12/la-legitimidad-de-las-cortes-constitucionales/, IberICONnect,[s.l.], Dec. 16, Available at
dc.relation.referencesSamuel, G., Is legal reasoning like medical reasoning? (2015) Legal Studies, London, 35 (2), pp. 323-347. , https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12063, Available at
dc.relation.referencesShapiro, S.J., The Hart-Dworkin Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed (2007) Michigan Law, 77, pp. 1-54. , http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.968657, Available at
dc.relation.referencesShiller, R.J., (2016) Irrational Exuberance, , 3 ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press
dc.relation.referencesSilveira, L., Discovery And Justification of Judicial Decisions: Towards More Precise Distinctions in Legal Decision-Making (2014) Law and Method, [S.L.], 2, pp. 1-18. , https://10.5553/REM/.000007, Available at
dc.relation.referencesSolum, L.B., The Interpretation-Construction Distinction Constitutional Commentary, Minneapolis, 27 (1), pp. 95-118. , https://hdl.handle.net/11299/163425
dc.relation.referencesSolum, L.B., (2017) Legal Theory Lexicon: The Interpretation-Construction Distinction, , https://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2017/02/legal-theory-lexicon-the-interpretation-construction-distinction.html, Legal-Theory Blog, Available at
dc.relation.referencesSorensen, R., Vagueness Has No Function in Law (2002) Legal Theory, 7 (4), pp. 387-417. , https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325201704053
dc.relation.referencesStaton, J.K., Vanberg, G., The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions. (2008) American Journal of Political Science, Hanover, 52 (3), pp. 504-519. , https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00326.x, Available at
dc.relation.referencesStone, S., (2000) Alec. Governing with Judges, , Oxford: Oxford University Press
dc.relation.referencesStone, S., Alec. Constitutional Courts and Parliamentary Democracy (2002) West European Politics, [S.L.], 25 (1), pp. 77-100
dc.relation.referencesStone Sweet, A., The Politics of Constitutional Review in France and Europe (2007) International Journal of Constitutional Law, 5 (1), pp. 69-92. , https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/5/1/69/722503
dc.relation.referencesSummers, R.S., Two Types of Substantive Reasons: The Core of a Theory of Common-Law Justification (1978) Cornell Law Review, Ithaca, 63 (5), pp. 707-788. , https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol63/iss5/1
dc.relation.referencesSummers, R.S., Maccormick, D.N., Interpretation and Comparative Analysis (2010) Interpreting Statutes, pp. 461-510. , MACCORMICK, D. Neil
dc.relation.referencesSUMMERS, Robert S, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited
dc.relation.referencesSunstein, C.R., (2018) Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, , 2 ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press
dc.relation.referencesSweet, A.S., Mathews, J., Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism (2008) Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, [S.L.], 47 (1), pp. 72-164
dc.relation.referencesTarello, G., (1980) L’ Interpretazione Della Legge, , Milano: Guiffrè Editore
dc.relation.referencesTarr, G.A., (2019) Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking., , 7 ed. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
dc.relation.referencesWhy Do Our Decisions Depend on How Options are Presented to Us?, , https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/framing-effect/
dc.relation.referencesWasserstrom, R.A., (1961) The Judicial Decision: Toward a Theory of Legal Justification, , Stanford: Stanford University Press
dc.relation.referencesWróblewski, J., Normativity of Legal Science. (1966) Logique Et Analyse, Leuven, 9 (33), pp. 60-77
dc.relation.referencesWróblewski, J., (1985) Constitución Y teoría General De La interpretación jurídica, , Madrid: Editorial Civitas S.A
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.identifier.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional Universidad de Medellín
dc.identifier.repourlrepourl:https://repository.udem.edu.co/
dc.identifier.instnameinstname:Universidad de Medellín


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record