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

This paper states that the absolute concentration of legal interpretation power in a supreme court is an error; moreover in times when judges themselves around the world are less convinced that the law is more a science than it is politics. It is argued that the alternative to monism is not necessarily disorder. Instead, it could be Legal Pluralism. The official interpretation of the law can be divided or balanced rather than completely merged or eliminated. It is likely that with a correct balance between the powers' separation and the stoppage and counterbalance system there won't be a principie solution to the tension underlying in the ideal of the Rule of Law, yet practical alternatives are offered to the choice among tyranny and disorder.

Imperio del Derecho versus imperio de los Jueces: Un alegato por el pluralismo jurídico