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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The cognition of the law of a certain community requires distinguishing between true and false legal statements. Such statements are a type of normative statements, and normative statements describe that certain actions are obligatory (forbidden) or permitted. In their classical book on normative systems, Alchourron and Bulygin offer the most elaborated analysis of the nature of legal statements. Basically, they claim that legal statements are disguised normative propositions (that is, propositions that refer to the existence of legal norms) and their reductionism is grounded on a specific conception of law and legal theory: legal positivism. In this paper, I claim not only that Alchourron and Bulygin actually endorsed different views about legal statements and normative propositions but also that a legal positivist is not committed to subscribe the classical analysis offered by them.

¿Son los enunciados jurídicos proposiciones normativas?