La Economía Social y Solidaria en el Constitucionalismo Andino.
| Autor | Agustin Torres |
| Páginas | 33-47 |
LA ECONOMÍA SOCIAL Y SOLIDARIA EN EL
CONSTITUCIONALISMO ANDINO:
LOS CASOS DE ECUADOR Y DE BOLIVIA: SENTIDO HISTÓRICO E
IDENTIDAD CULTURAL.
THE SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY IN THE ANDEAN
CONSTITUTIONALISM:
THE CASES OF ECUADOR AND BOLIVIA: HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
AND CULTURAL IDENTITY.
AGUSTIN TORRES
1
RESUMEN: Este artículo indaga en el sentido y alcance de la inserción constitucional que presenta la
economía social y solidaria, en sus actuales dimensiones, en Bolivia y Ecuador en su condición de
Estados andinos que decidieron contemplar las recientes expresiones de la economía social en sus
respectivas cartas políticas. El trabajo permite apreciar que la regulación de la economía social y
solidaria en los Constituciones de Bolivia y Ecuador, a pesar de las diferencias entre ambos textos,
reconoce la conexión de esta alternativa económica con una concepción tradicional sobre el desarrollo,
en la cual convergen principios y valores referentes a la identidad cultural y a la historia de las
sociedades de ambos países. Con un carácter predominantemente descriptivo y mediante un enfoque
cualitativo se examina los dispositivos constitucionales pertinentes en la materia y se analizan
determinadas interpretaciones doctrinarias sobre los fundamentos y las orientaciones que subyacen a la
noción de economía social y solidaria contenida en las constituciones de ambos países.
PALABRAS CLAVES: Constitucionalismo Andino - Economía Social y Solidaria - Bolivia -Ecuador
ABSTRACT: This article deals with the meaning and scope of the constitutional insertion of the
social and solidarity economy, in its current dimensions, in Bolivia and Ecuador, like expression of
Andean countries that decided to regulate the modern manifestation of the social economy in their
Federal Constitutions. The paper indicates that the regulation of the social and solidarity economy in
the Constitutions of Bolivia and Ecuador, despite the differences between both laws, recognises the
connection of this economic alternative with a development traditional conception that includes
principles and values concerning to the cultural identity and the history of the societies of both
countries. With a predominantly descriptive character and through a qualitative approach, the
constitutional rules in the issue are examined and some interpretations of the authors about the basis
and orientations of the social economy notion contained in the constitutions of both countries are
analysed.
KEYWORDS: Andean Constitutionalism - Social and Solidarity Economy - Bolivia -Ecuador
Doctor en Humanidades por la Universidad Nacional de Tucumán [Argentina]; Doctor en Derecho por la
1
Universidad de Buenos Aires [Argentina]; Investigador del Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y
Técnicas de Argentina [CONICET]. Profesor de la Universidad Católica de Santiago del Estero [UCSE;
Argentina]
Revista Acadêmica da Faculdade de Direito do Recife, vol.89, n.02, jul.-dez. 2017
!33
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
4
Volume 89, número 01, jan-jun. 2017
Why Individual Freedom and the Autonomy of Law
Stand or Fall Together
Bjarne Melkevik1
Åsbjørn Melkevik2
1 Two Kinds of Autonomy – Legal and Individual
There is, in legal philosophy, an ongoing debate about the autonomy of law, that
is, about the extent to which law is distinguishable from some other phenomena. The
dominant views, today, all understand law as fulfilling a certain instrumental role. Justice
and efficacy, then, are probably the most common relational others to law. For example,
it is common to say that the law should further a certain understanding of distributive
justice – this is the view preferred by philosophers such as John Rawls and Ronald
Dworkin. Others have argued for the efficacy of the law as with the law-and-economics
approach most famously championed by Judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.
This paper argues for a radically different understanding of the law, as it explains why
the law should indeed be autonomous. The question, however, is not whether the law is
actually autonomous or not – it is obviously not, as the law is too often the plaything of
various lawgivers. The real question is the following – do we want to be autonomous, as
individuals? The answer is obviously yes, individual freedom being a universal value,
and therefore, this paper argues, the law should also be autonomous. There is, as we will
1 Doctorat d’État in Legal Science at University Paris 2 – France. Professor at the Faculté de Droit –
Université Laval /Canada.
2 Ph.D. in political studies, Queen`s University. Post-Doctoral Fellow-in-Residence at Harvard University.
Autores convidados
Recebimento em 27/06/2017
Aceito em 07/07/2017
Autor
convidado
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO