Law as a generational and dynamic instrument at the service of society: an approach from Holmesian perspective1
Article Sidebar
Published:
Sep 13, 2018
Keywords:
law, Holmes, everyday, democracy
Main Article Content
Abstract
The present text addresses from a Holmesian reading the Law and its dynamic role at the service of society, rejecting any approach that becomes an obstacle for future generations. Considering in this sense that no institution, however important, can be considered as inalterable and, no law however fundamental, can be considered as irrevocable either (Holmes, 2004, p.199).Starting from the Constitution as the supreme norm, its scope is projected as aninstrument that allows it to be either a stabilizing axis of the present, or allowsit to become an obstacle for the future. This is based on the phenomenon causedby the intentions that past generations had, which is today a navigation route and which, when reflected in political documents, will therefore govern the compass that steers public decisions.
Article Details
How to Cite
Vargas-Chaves, I., & Alzate-Mora, D. (2018). Law as a generational and dynamic instrument at the service of society: an approach from Holmesian perspective1. In Vestigium Ire, 11(2), 80-92. Retrieved from http://revistas.ustatunja.edu.co/index.php/ivestigium/article/view/1551
Issue
Section
Artículos Núm. 11-2
Investigium Ire of http://revistas.ustatunja.edu.co/index.php/ivestigium is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonComecial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NCND 4.0)
References
Aragón, M. (1996). Parlamentarismo y antiparlamentarismo en el primer tercio del siglo XX: la proyección actual de aquella polémica. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 93, 39-57.
Collins, M. (2000). AS Level Law. London: Routledge
Cullell-March, C. (2011). El principio de neutralidad tecnológica y de servicios en la UE: la liberalización del espectro radioeléctrico. IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, 11, 1-10.
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (1998). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gargarella, R. (2008). Constitucionalismo vs. Democracia. En R. Gargarella (Ed.), Teoría y crítica del Derecho Constitucional, Buenos Aires: Abeledo Perrot.
Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist papers, No. 78. New York: Independent Journal
Hayek, F. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Holmes, S. (2004). Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy. En J. Elster & R. Slagstad Rune (Eds.). Constitucionalismo y democracia. Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Jefferson, T. (1984). Writings. New York: Library of America.
Jonas, H. (1985). The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kohn, C. (2000). Las paradojas de la democracia liberal: la ausencia del hombre en el Fin de la historia. Caracas: Exd.
Koops, B. (2006). Should ICT regulation be technology-neutral. En: B. Koops, M. Lips, C. Prins & M. Schellekens (Eds.) Starting points for ICT regulation. Deconstructing Prevalent Policy one-liners (77-108). La Haya: IT & Law Series.
Lacruz, J.L., Sancho, F., & Luna, A. (1988). Parte general del derecho civil. Barcelona: Bosch.
Llambias, J. (2012). Tratado de Derecho Civil. Tomo I. Buenos Aires: Editorial Perrot.
Madison, J. (1788). Federalist No. 49. New Haven: Yale University
Martí, J.L. (2006). La República Deliberativa, Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Paine, T. (1791). The Rights of the Man. London: J.S. Jordan.
Pufendorf, S. (1934). De Iure Nature et Gentium, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Roncal-Vattuone, X. (2013). La naturaleza... un sujeto con derechos: apuntes para la reflexión. Revista Integra Educativa, 6(3), 121-136.
Rosenfeld, M. (1994). Constitutionalism, identity, difference, and legitimacy: theoretical perspectives. Durham: Duke University Press.
Rousseau, J. J. (1920). The Social Contract: & Discourses (No. 660). Londres: JM Dent & Sons.
Ruggiero, R. (1929). Instituciones de Derecho Civil. Madrid: Reus.
Sarat, A., & Kearns, T. R. (2009). Editorial Introduction. En A. Sarat, & T.R. Kearns (Eds.). Law in everyday life (pp. 1-20). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Shapiro, M. (1968). The Constitution of the United States and Related Documents. Nueva York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Schmitt, C. (1928). Verfassungslere Berlin: Dunker and Humboldt.
Schlink, B. (1992). German constitutional culture in transition. Cardozo Law Review, 14, 711-736.
Collins, M. (2000). AS Level Law. London: Routledge
Cullell-March, C. (2011). El principio de neutralidad tecnológica y de servicios en la UE: la liberalización del espectro radioeléctrico. IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, 11, 1-10.
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (1998). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gargarella, R. (2008). Constitucionalismo vs. Democracia. En R. Gargarella (Ed.), Teoría y crítica del Derecho Constitucional, Buenos Aires: Abeledo Perrot.
Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist papers, No. 78. New York: Independent Journal
Hayek, F. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Holmes, S. (2004). Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy. En J. Elster & R. Slagstad Rune (Eds.). Constitucionalismo y democracia. Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Jefferson, T. (1984). Writings. New York: Library of America.
Jonas, H. (1985). The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kohn, C. (2000). Las paradojas de la democracia liberal: la ausencia del hombre en el Fin de la historia. Caracas: Exd.
Koops, B. (2006). Should ICT regulation be technology-neutral. En: B. Koops, M. Lips, C. Prins & M. Schellekens (Eds.) Starting points for ICT regulation. Deconstructing Prevalent Policy one-liners (77-108). La Haya: IT & Law Series.
Lacruz, J.L., Sancho, F., & Luna, A. (1988). Parte general del derecho civil. Barcelona: Bosch.
Llambias, J. (2012). Tratado de Derecho Civil. Tomo I. Buenos Aires: Editorial Perrot.
Madison, J. (1788). Federalist No. 49. New Haven: Yale University
Martí, J.L. (2006). La República Deliberativa, Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Paine, T. (1791). The Rights of the Man. London: J.S. Jordan.
Pufendorf, S. (1934). De Iure Nature et Gentium, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Roncal-Vattuone, X. (2013). La naturaleza... un sujeto con derechos: apuntes para la reflexión. Revista Integra Educativa, 6(3), 121-136.
Rosenfeld, M. (1994). Constitutionalism, identity, difference, and legitimacy: theoretical perspectives. Durham: Duke University Press.
Rousseau, J. J. (1920). The Social Contract: & Discourses (No. 660). Londres: JM Dent & Sons.
Ruggiero, R. (1929). Instituciones de Derecho Civil. Madrid: Reus.
Sarat, A., & Kearns, T. R. (2009). Editorial Introduction. En A. Sarat, & T.R. Kearns (Eds.). Law in everyday life (pp. 1-20). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Shapiro, M. (1968). The Constitution of the United States and Related Documents. Nueva York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Schmitt, C. (1928). Verfassungslere Berlin: Dunker and Humboldt.
Schlink, B. (1992). German constitutional culture in transition. Cardozo Law Review, 14, 711-736.