Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUCI) is the main journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University. It has been published since 1954 and is one of the traditional law journals with a theoretical focus.
As a general law journal, it publishes longer studies and shorter articles on any relevant issues in legal theory and international, European and national law. AUCI also publishes material relating to current legislative issues. AUCI is a peer-reviewed journal and accepts submissions from both Czech and international authors. Contributions by foreign authors are published in their original language – Slovak, English, German, French.
AUCI is a theoretical journal for questions of state and law. It is published by Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, through Karolinum Press. It is published four times a year, the dates of publication can be found here.
Articles published in AUCI undergo an independent peer review process, which is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers from the field give their opinion on the scientific quality of the paper and the suitability of publication in the journal. In the case of comments, the opinion is sent back to the author with the possibility of revising the text (see Guidelines for Authors – Per Review Process for more details).
The AUCI journal (ISSN 0323-0619) is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI has been assigned a periodical registration number MK E 18585.
In 2021 the journal AUCI was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database Scopus. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite Scopus database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUCI is an open journal and all its content is published both on the faculty website and on the Karolinum Press website. Access to it is free of charge. The homepage of AUCI is on the Karolinum Press website.
The AUCI journal uses the Creative Commons license: CC BY 4.0.
Long-term archiving of the digital content of the journal is provided by Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 70 No 4 (2024), 31–42
Alternatives to Judicial Balancing: Interpretative-subsumptive Method according to Juan Antonio García Amado
Marin Keršić
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2024.158
published online: 28. 11. 2024
abstract
The paper deals with the problem of conflicts between fundamental rights by presenting and analysing one of the possible methods for the resolution of such conflicts. The method in question is the so-called interpretative-subsumptive method, developed by Spanish legal philosopher Juan Antonio García Amado. The interpretative-subsumptive method represents an alternative to the mainstream method used for the resolution of conflicts between fundamental rights – judicial balancing, and particularly the version developed by Robert Alexy. After the introduction, interpretative-subsumptive method is contextualised by presenting Garcia Amado’s ideas which are of relevance for the inquiry – his inclusive legal positivist views, the theory of legal interpretation he ascribes to and his understanding and typology of fundamental rights and their conflicts. After that, in the central section of the paper, the theoretical framework of the interpretative-subsumptive method is presented, along with its application to a Spanish Supreme Court case, followed by the criticism that has been raised and ending with conclusions.
keywords: fundamental rights; balancing; interpretation; normative conflicts; antinomies
references (27)
1. ALEXY, R. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
2. ATIENZA, M. El derecho como argumentación [Law as argumentation]. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel, 2006.
3. BARAK, A. Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. CrossRef
4. CELANO, B. Los derechos en el estado constitucional [Rights in the constitutional state]. Lima: Palestra Editores, 2019.
5. CHIASSONI, P. Interpretation without Truth: A Realistic Enquiry. Cham: Springer, 2019, pp. 79-82. CrossRef
6. GARCÍA AMADO, J. A. ¿Conflictos entre derechos fundamentales? Sobre ponderaciones y otros trucos y a propósito de dos sentencias españolas [Conflicts between fundamental rights? On weightings and other tricks and about two Spanish judgments]. Nuevos Paradigmas de las Ciencias Sociales Latinoamericanas [New Paradigms in Latin American Social Sciences]. 2014, Vol. 5, No. 10, p. 8.
7. GARCÍA AMADO, J. A. El derecho y sus circunstancias: Nuevos ensayos de filosofia jurídica [Law and its circumstances: New essays on legal philosophy]. Colombia: Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2010GUASTINI, R. L'interpretazione dei documenti normativi. Milan: Giuffrè, 2004.
8. GARCÍA AMADO, J. A. El juicio de ponderación y sus partes: Una crítica [The judgment of weighting and its parts: A critique]. In: ALEXY, R. (ed.). Derechos sociales y ponderación [Social rights and weighting]. Madrid: Fundación Coloquio Jurídico Europeo, 2009, pp. 249-331.
9. GARCÍA AMADO, J. A. ¿Existe discrecionalidad en la decision judicial? [Is there discretionality in the judicial decision?] Isegoría. 2006, Vol. 35, pp. 151-172. CrossRef
10. GARCÍA AMADO, J. A. La interpretación constitucional [Constitutional interpretation]. Revista Jurídica de Castilla y León [Castile and Leon Law Review]. 2004, Vol. 2, pp. 35-72.
11. GARCÍA AMADO, J. A. ¿Que es ponderar? Sobre implicaciones y riesgos de la ponderación [What is weighting? On the implications and risks of weighting]. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación [Iberoamerican Journal of Argumentation]. 2016, Vol. 13, pp. 1-22.
12. GARCÍA AMADO, J. A. Sobre ponderaciones: Debatiendo con Manuel Atienza [On weightings: Debating with Manuel Atienza]. In: ATIENZA, M. - GARCÍA AMADO, J. A. (eds.). Un debate sobre ponderación [A debate on weighting]. Lima/Bogota: Palestra Editores/Editorial Temis, 2012, pp. 37-78.
13. GUASTINI, R. Interpretare e argomentare [Interpreting and arguing]. Milan: Giuffrè, 2011.
14. GUASTINI, R. Interpretive Statements. In: GARZÓN VALDÉS, E. - KRAVIETZ, W. - VON WRIGHT, G. - ZIMMERLING, R. (eds.). Normative Systems in Legal and Moral Theory: Festschrift for Carlos E. Alchourrón and Eugenio Bulygin. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1997, pp. 279 ff.
15. GUASTINI, R. Lo scetticismo interpretativo rivisitato [Interpretive skepticism revisited]. Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica [Materials for a history of legal culture]. 2006, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 227-236.
16. GUASTINI, R. Ponderazione: Un'analisi dei conflitti tra principi costituzionali [Weighting: An analysis of conflicts between constitutional principles]. Ragion pratica [Practical Reason]. 2006, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 151-159.
17. MALDONADO MUÑOZ, M. Derechos y conflictos: Conflictivismo y anticonflictivismo en torno a las derechos fundamentals [Rights and conflicts: Conflictivism and anticonflictivism around fundamental rights]. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2021.
18. MARTÍNEZ ZORRILLA, D. The Structure of Conflicts of Fundamental Legal Rights. Law and Philosophy. 2011, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 729-749. CrossRef
19. MILLER, B. W. Proportionality's Blind Spot: "Neutrality" and Political Philosophy. In: HUSCROFT, G. - MILLER, B. W. - WEBBER, G. (eds.). Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification and Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 370-396. CrossRef
20. ORTEGA GARCÍA, R. Nota introductoria [Introductory Note]. In: GARCÍA AMADO, J. A. (ed.). Decidir y argumentar sobre derechos [Deciding and arguing about rights]. Mexico City: Tirant lo blanch, 2017.
21. PINO, G. Conflitti tra diritti fondamentali: Una critica a Luigi Ferrajoli [Conflicts between fundamental rights: A critique of Luigi Ferrajoli]. Filosofia politica [Political philosophy]. 2010, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 288-292.
22. PINO, G. Diritti e interpretazione: Il ragionamento giuridico nello Stato costituzionale [Rights and interpretation: Legal reasoning in the constitutional state]. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2010, pp. 22-25.
23. POSCHER, R. Ambiguity and Vagueness in Legal Interpretation. In: TEIRSMA, P. M. - SOLAN, L. M. (eds.). Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 128-144. CrossRef
24. SMET, S. Resolving Conflicts Between Human Rights: The Judge's Dilemma. Abindgon: Routledge, 2017. CrossRef
25. WEBBER, G. On the Loss of Rights. In: HUSCROFT, G. - MILLER, B. W. - WEBBER, G. (eds.). Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification and Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 123-154. CrossRef
26. WEBBER, G. Proportionality, Balancing, and the Cult of Constitutional Rights Scholarship. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence. 2010, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 179-202. CrossRef
27. YOUNG, A. L. Proportionality Is Dead: Long Live Proportionality! In: HUSCROFT, G. - MILLER, B. W. - WEBBER, G. (eds.). Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification and Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 43-66. CrossRef
Alternatives to Judicial Balancing: Interpretative-subsumptive Method according to Juan Antonio García Amado is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
