English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Although nowadays it is widely accepted that legal systems are incapable of offering a unique right answer to each case, it is still possible (as some authors do) to distinguish between the formal correction level of a legal decision and that their justice level, and to defend that law could be able to offer a justied answer to every case. As much as we consider acceptable the distinction between the plane of formal correction and the plane of justice, this paper seeks to show that the three main arguments used to defend that in every case there is a single justied answer (i.e., the maximum degree of concretion, the bivalence of legal truth and the existence of principles) are not able to achieve their objective. However, this work observes that these arguments can show that law draws limits —with different intensity— to judicial decisions depending on which stage of that decision we are.

De la respuesta correcta a la respuesta más justa. La intensidad de la tesis de la respuesta justa en las distintas etapas de la decisión judicial