Judicial Justification: Internal, External, and Interpretation
Understanding Legal Justification
Justification, in a broad sense, refers to a system of rules—be they ideal, moral, or positive (current in society)—that applies not only to law but also to religious, moral, or corporate contexts. Initially, we will focus on justification within the legal system.
In principle, a judge is obligated to justify decisions under the law, unlike other systems, because the judge functions as an operator of law. Legal arguments differ significantly from moral arguments.
Types of Justification in Law
Legal justification is primarily categorized into two types:
Internal Justification
A decision is internally justified when it logically follows from its premises according to accepted rules of logical inference. This refers to formal reasoning, where the structure of the argument is correct based on logical rules. It is purely formal. For example, a judge’s decision is internally justified if it correctly emerges from a factual premise and applicable legal rules.
External Justification
A decision is externally justified when the premises from which it follows are considered correct, valid, or acceptable. This is a material type of argument. The judge must demonstrate that both the legislation and the factual premise are well-founded and legally sound. Each premise must be valid and accepted.
The Justification Process: Atienza’s Scheme
According to Atienza’s scheme, the justification of premises follows a pattern of problems that lead to the argument. We begin with a normative premise (the applicable rule) and a factual premise (the established facts). From these, the judicial ruling or decision is justified. The judge justifies the decision by demonstrating the validity and relevance of each premise.
Challenges in Internal Justification
Problems often arise in the internal justification of the normative premise, specifically concerning issues of relevance and interpretation.
Problems of Relevance
The judge, as the deciding body, must determine the relevant rule to resolve a conflict. This involves the concept of applicability. For a norm to be applicable, it must not only be valid but also meet other necessary conditions. It’s important to note that:
- Some norms can be valid but not applicable.
- Some norms can be applicable even if they appear invalid (e.g., due to specific legal contexts).
Norms are valid if approved by competent bodies. However, valid but non-applicable rules are those not in force (e.g., during a vacatio legis period). Judges cannot apply such rules, even if they are legally valid.
Furthermore, contradictions between rules can occur, requiring the judge to choose and apply one over another. Various criteria exist for determining the applicable standard when competing norms are present.
Problems of Interpretation
There are three main theories of legal interpretation:
- Objectivist Interpretation: Aims to discover the inherent meaning of the regulatory text. It posits that the text has its own essence and meaning.
- Subjectivist Interpretation: Focuses on attributing or assigning meaning to the text. The text’s meaning depends on context, various elements, and the interpreter’s own understanding.
- Middle-Range Interpretation: Combines the best aspects of both objectivist and subjectivist approaches.
This middle-range conception distinguishes between easy cases and difficult cases. Easy cases involve clear or meaningful standards, or a consensus on how to interpret certain rules, drawing not only from law but also from case law.
Judges possess discretionary power because the rules are not always certain. Problems in interpretation are often structural, including:
- Semantic Ambiguity and Vagueness: Issues with the language itself.
- Systemic Problems: Conflicts or inconsistencies within the legal system.
- Functional Problems: Challenges related to the practical application or purpose of the law.