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

Throughout his work, Neil MacCormick has developed some criteria to evaluate the rationality of the legal reasoning from the argumentative point of view, based on the political ideal of the Rule of Law. These criteria are consistency, coherence, consequentialism and universalizability. In earlier works, we have pointed out that the application of such evaluative criteria in the analysis of concrete cases, while useful, reveals certain practical limitations. This article, therefore, aims to explore the possibilities and limits to the application of the evaluation criteria proposed by Neil MacCormick in the analysis of concrete cases.

As limitações e possibilidades dos critérios avaliativos propostos por Neil MacCormick para a argumentação jurídica