La estabilidad es una de las características centrales de una constitución, aunque su consecución trascienda los planteamientos puramente constitucionales. Los métodos institucionales que se han utilizado para, en cierta medida, intentar alcanzarla son diversos —y a veces contradictorios— según se adapten más o menos fácilmente a la demanda de cambio constitucional. Entre estos fenómenos, este trabajo formula un nuevo concepto denominado liquidez constitucional cuya utilidad radica en propiciar dimensiones de flexibilidad en constituciones rígidas. La liquidez constitucional se canaliza a través (...) de las denominadas cláusulas de liquidez constitucional que se formulan inductivamente a la luz de la Constitución española de 1978 y que son analizadas estructural y funcionalmente. Finalmente, se comparan con otros conceptos tradicionales relativos al tratamiento de la estabilidad y el cambio constitucional. (shrink)

This article examines the role of normative hierarchies in constitutional argumentation. A threefold distinction between formal, material, and axiological hierarchy is employed. The correlative concepts of formal validity, material validity, and applicability are also briefly described. Within this framework, four cases are analysed: Decisions 1146/1988 and 10/2010 of the Italian Constitutional Court, and Kadi I and Opinion 2/2013 of the Court of Justice of the European Union. As a result, it is argued that axiological hierarchies are frequently used to reshape (...) certain fundamental legal arrangements, namely, the hierarchy of sources (Decision 1146/1988 and Kadi), competence clauses (Decision 10/2010), and interpretive methodologies (Opinion 2/13). (shrink)

Systemic validity has been criticised based on its supposed inability to account for the validity of so-called extra systemic norms and unconstitutional statutes. The article argues that these crit...

This paper investigates whether or not cases of in concreto antinomies (ICAs for short, also called indirect antinomies, accidental antinomies, normative conflicts due to the facts, predicaments, or paranomies) can be predicted. I distinguish two main theoretical positions: “Prodetection” argues that we can predict in concreto antinomies; “unpredictability” argues that we cannot predict them.I exemplify the two positions by relying on a disagreement found in the literature; then, after reviewing that disagreement, I (i) provide arguments for both positions; (ii) highlight (...) the problematic issues for a definition of in concreto antinomy based on conceptual independence; (iii) point out some problems in Martínez Zorrilla’s threefold conception of normative conflicts; and (iv) advocate the need to introduce a case for “practically unpredictable” normative conflicts. (shrink)