Imago Veritas Falsa: For a (Post-)Schmittian Decisionist Theory of Law, Legal Reasoning and Judging

TY - JOUR

T1 - Imago Veritas Falsa

T2 - For a (Post-)Schmittian Decisionist Theory of Law, Legal Reasoning and Judging

AU - Siliquini-Cinelli, Luca

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - For decades, while approaching the ‘normativism/pragmatism’ divide and discussing the legitimacy of (and opportunity for) the judge to act as a ‘social engineer,’ socio-legal scholars have tried to ascertain whether the jurist should also consider the impact of his/her activity on society at large, and if so, why and to what extent. The present contribution understands instead the law in terms of a structurally incomplete image (imago veritas falsa) which always needs the decisive intervention of the legal interpreter to exercise its performative instances. In particular, by adopting an unconventional theoretico-philosophical approach that transcends the classic boundaries of foundationalist metaphysics as expressed by the dichotomy of Western logic, this paper argues for the necessity of a tertium comparationis capable of explaining that the real essence of law, legal reasoning, and judging is neither that of normativism, nor of pragmatism, but rather of (post-)Schmittian decisionism.

AB - For decades, while approaching the ‘normativism/pragmatism’ divide and discussing the legitimacy of (and opportunity for) the judge to act as a ‘social engineer,’ socio-legal scholars have tried to ascertain whether the jurist should also consider the impact of his/her activity on society at large, and if so, why and to what extent. The present contribution understands instead the law in terms of a structurally incomplete image (imago veritas falsa) which always needs the decisive intervention of the legal interpreter to exercise its performative instances. In particular, by adopting an unconventional theoretico-philosophical approach that transcends the classic boundaries of foundationalist metaphysics as expressed by the dichotomy of Western logic, this paper argues for the necessity of a tertium comparationis capable of explaining that the real essence of law, legal reasoning, and judging is neither that of normativism, nor of pragmatism, but rather of (post-)Schmittian decisionism.

M3 - Article

SN - 1440-4982

VL - 39

SP - 118

EP - 141

JO - Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy

JF - Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy

ER -