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

To establish objective standards of proof for the guidance of judicial decisions is one of the greatest yearnings of legal epistemology. Among the proposals, one of the most well-received seems to be that of those who suggest fixing the standards by using parameters of epistemic justification. This paper argues that this enterprise is unfeasible, making explicit the reasons for this unfeasibility. In any case, a revaluation of these proposals is suggested even if with a more circumscribed utility. Judicial decisions – epistemic justification – standards of proof 26 REVISTA DE DERECHO (VALDIVIA) [VOLUMEN XXXIII No 2

Prueba libre, justificación epistémica y el noble sueño de los estándares de prueba