Universitat Pompeu Fabra
2026-01-16T13:45:19Z
2026-01-16T13:45:19Z
2016
2026-01-16T13:45:19Z
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.
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 disa-gree. In this paper I analyze this response and I offer a number of objections aga-inst it
Artículo
Versión publicada
Castellano
Desacuerdos jurídicos; Dworkin; negociaciones metalingüísticas; Pragmática; Legal disagreements; Dworkin; Metalinguistic negotiations; Pragmatics
ITAM. Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México
Isonomía revista de teoría y filosofía del derecho. 2016;(44):39-62
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
