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

Two different sets of legal theories have denied that judges have any discretion when deciding cases. The first was “naive” formalism as practised in the XIXth century,and more specifically, the exegesis school in France and the conceptual jurisprudence school (Begriffsjurisprudenz) in Germany. The second was the “sophisticated” formalism of the late XXth century, which both establishes a connection between law and social morality, and undertakes a moral reading of the constitution so that positive law could offer the one right answer in each case. On its turn, mainstream legal positivism has regarded judicial discretion as an unavoidable and even perhaps desirable consequence of the structural features of any really existing legal order.

¿Existe discrecionalidad en la decisión judicial?