Este trabajo es una crítica a la distinción entre lagunas de conocimiento y reconocimiento. En Normative Systems, Alchourrón y Bulygin sostienen que estas indeterminaciones en la aplicación del derecho son problemas diferentes. Según AB, las lagunas de conocimiento surgen por nuestro deficiente conocimiento de las circunstancias del caso, pero las lagunas de reconocimiento se producen por la vaguedad del lenguaje. Para resolver las lagunas de conocimiento, los juristas usan presunciones y para resolver las lagunas de reconocimiento es preciso redefinir los (...) conceptos. Sin embargo, AB no ofrecen una reconstrucción específica de la vaguedad y ello afecta al análisis de esos tipos de lagunas. En particular, AB creen que la vaguedad es un problema epistémico y, por ello, un sistema completo puede ofrecer una respuesta correcta para cada caso individual aun cuando no podamos conocer esa solución. Pero, cuando se asume que la vaguedad es un problema epistémico, entonces no existen mayores razones para distinguir entre lagunas de conocimiento y lagunas de reconocimiento. This paper analyzes the distinction between gaps of knowledge and gaps of recognition. In Normative Systems, Alchourrón and Bulygin claim that both indeterminacies are different problems that arise in the application of general norms to individual cases. Where through ignorance of certain properties of the facts, we cannot determine whether an individual case belongs to a generic case, we speak of gap of knowledge. On the contrary, gaps of recognitions are caused by the semantic indeterminacy of the concepts which define a generic case. In order to solve gaps of knowledge, jurists use legal presumptions, but the solution of a gap of knowledge requires the redefinition of a certain concept. However, AB believe that vagueness is only an epistemic problem. For this reason, they conclude that a complete normative system resolves every possible individual case even though we can still find epistemic indeterminacies. However, this paper shows that if vagueness is characterized as an epistemic problem, there will be no relevant reason for stressing the distinction between gaps of recognition and gaps of knowledge. (shrink)

Abstract.The paper offers a critical survey of two main sorts of problems hindering the possibility of conceiving deontic logic as a suitable account of the logical behaviour of (sentences expressing) legal norms. The notion of “legal norm” is viewed as the main source of the first sort of problems: (a) the typological variety of legal norms requires an account both of the differing logical behaviour of (sentences expressing) differing legal norms, and of the relations which might hold amon them; (b) (...) the ontologic, semantic, and epistemic features of legal norms shed doubt on the very attempt to figure out a logical analysis of (sentences expressing) legal norms. The notion of “systemic legal validity” is viewed as the main source of the second sort of problems: Deontic logic does not provide suitable logical tools to account for legal phenomena like enactment, derogation, and conflicts between legal norms which rely on systemic legal validity. (shrink)

In this book, I present the results of an investigation which began with an extended stay at Oxford's Balliol College during the first half of 1995. My visit to Oxford was made possible by a grant from the Spanish Ministerio de Educaci6n y Ciencia. My sincere thanks go to Joseph Raz who served as my supervisor in Oxford. For several points of the present study, conversations with Timothy Endicott in Oxford were also of great help. The book is part of (...) a larger project of investigation, directed by Albert Calsami glia, which is a joint effort of a group of legal philosophers from the Universitat Pom peu Fabra and the Universitat de Girona, and which also receives financial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Educaci6n y Ciencia. An earlier version of the manuscript was presented in June 1996 to the selection committee for a tenured professorship in Legal Philosophy at the Universitat de Girona. The members of the committee were Francisco Laporta, Albert Calsamiglia, Gregorio Peces-Barba, Camilo J. Cela Conde, and Francesca Puigpelat. I am grateful to all of them for their comments, which have been extremely useful in preparing the final ver sion of this book. (shrink)