Interpretive formalism in the context of using “ex auctoritate” argument
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15633/acan.20203Keywords:
legal formalism, “ex auctoritate”argument, theory of argumentation, Signatura Apostolic Tribunal, jurisprudenceAbstract
In the process of legal argumentation, each time an interpreter uses an ex auctoritate argument, by referring to the consolidated jurisprudence, he must be aware of the danger of being accused of using legal formalism. In the present paper, this issue has been examined in relation to the published jurisprudence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, because to this jurisprudence are generally referred the judges of this Tribunal when hearing similar and already resolved cases, as well as ecclesiastic superiors when they put into practise some administrative functions of their government. The results of the query authorize the adoption of a preliminary conclusion that judicial formalism does not accept extreme forms of argumentation that may lead to right but unjust decisions; however, it strengthens the authority of the Supreme Tribunal itself every time an administrative judge refers to an analogous controversy and issues a similar judgment.
References
Amato S., Metodo e uso del metodo nel formalismo giuridico, “Rivista internazionale di filosofia del diritto” 58 (1981), p. 373–390.
Arrieta J. I., La salus animarum quale guida applicativa del diritto da parte dei pastori, “Ius Ecclesiae” 86 (2001) n. 1–2, p. 343–374.
Barak A., Purposive Interpretation in Law, Oxford 2005.
Benedetto XVI, Discorso all’Inaugurazione dell’Anno Giudiziario del Tribunale della Rota Romana, 21 gennaio 2012, “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” 104 (2012), p. 103–107.
Bobbio N., Formalismo giuridico, in: Giusnaturalismo e positivismo giuridico, ed. N. Bobbio, Bari 2011, p. 64–77.
Canosa J., La tutela giurisdizionale nei confronti della pubblica amministrazione ecclesiastica, in: ed. J. Wroceński, M. Stokłosa, La funzione amministrativa nell’ordinamento canonico. XIV Congresso internazionale di diritto canonico, vol. 2, eds. J. Wroceński, M. Stokłosa, Warszawa 2012, p. 774–777.
Chiarloni S., Contrasti tra diritto della difesa e obbligo della difesa: un paradosso del formalismo concettualista, “Rivista di diritto processuale” 98 (1982), p. 641–663.
Cipriani F., Vecchie e nuove forme del formalismo processuale, “Foro Italiano” 143 (1994), p. 724–736.
Errázuriz C. J., La salus animarum tra dimensione comunitaria ed esigenze individuali della persona, “Ius Ecclesiae” 86 (2001) n. 1–2, p. 327–341.
Feliciani G., Le basi del diritto canonico, Bologna 2002.
Giacchi O., Diritto canonico e dogmatica giuridica moderna, “Foro Italiano” 64 (1939), p. 162–187.
Giacchi O., La norma nel diritto canonico, “Jus” 3 (1976), p. 23–36.
Hart H. L. A., Pojęcie prawa, tłum. J. Woleński, Warszawa 2020.
Herranz J., Salus animarum, principio dell'ordinamento canonico, “Ius Ecclesiae” 86 (2001) n. 1–2, p. 291–306.
Jori M., Il formalismo giuridico, Milano 1980.
Leiter B., Legal Formalism and Legal Realism: What is the Issue?, “University of Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper” 320 (2010), p. 111–133.
Libertini M., Il vincolo del diritto positivo per il giurista, in: Diritto positivo e positività del diritto, ed. G. Zaccaria, Torino 1991, p. 73–82.
Lyons D., Legal Formalism and Instrumentalism – a Pathological Study, “Cornell Law Review” 66 (1980–1981), p. 949–972.
Matczak M., Summa iniuria. O błędzie formalizmu w stosowaniu prawa, Warszawa 2007.
Michowicz P., La función nomofilática a través del precedente jurisprudencial de la Signatura Apostólica, “Ius Canonicum” 62 (2022) n. 23, p. 249–277.
Michowicz P., Razonamiento por principios. Aproximación canonística, “Ius Canonicum” 60 (2020) n. 120, p. 769–793.
Moneta P., La salus animarum nel dibattito della scienza canonistica, “Ius Ecclesiae” 86 (2001) n. 1–2, p. 307–326.
Pietrzykowski T., Naturalizm i granice nauk prawnych. Esej z metodologii prawoznawstwa, Warszawa 2017.
Pino G., Ex auctoritate, “Diritto & Questioni Pubbliche” 1 (2022), p. 283–303.
Pino G., L’interpretazione nel diritto, Torino 2021.
Schauer F., Formalism, “The Yale Law Journal” 97 (1988), p. 509–548.
Shapiro M., Judges as Liars, “Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy” 17 (1997), p. 155–156.
Shklar J., Legalism, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1964.
Tobor Z., To do a great right, do a little wrong – rzecz o sędziowskich kłamstewkach, “Przegląd Podatkowy” 6 (2015), p. 15–22.
Valitutti A., Precedente giudiziale e argomento «ex auctoritate», “Rivista di diritto processuale” 74 (2019) n. 2, p. 494–508.
Giurisprudenza
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, Decretum definitivum, diei 11 decembris 1986, Prot. N. 18061/86 CA, in: Ministerium iustitiæ: Jurisprudence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, ed. W. L. Daniel, Montréal 2011, p. 258–259.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, Decretum, diei 17 martii 2011, Prot. N. 44731/10 CA, “Ius Ecclesiae” 29 (2017), p. 665–667.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, coram Sandri, diei 25 maii 2019, Prot. N. 53106/17 CA, “Ius Canonicum” 60 (2020), p. 869–885.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, coram Monteiro Guimarães, diei 7 novembris 2013, Prot. N. 45923/11 CA, “Monitor Ecclesiaticus” 134 (2019), p. 35–49.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, coram Burke, diei 12 iunii 2006, Prot. N. 38743/06 CA, “Ius Ecclesiae” 27 (2015), p. 105–114.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, coram Rouco Varela, diei 27 novembris 2012, Prot. N. 46165/11 CA, “Ius Canonicum” 55 (2015), p. 759–762.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, coram Augustoni, diei 4 maii 1996, Prot. N. 24388/93 CA, “Ius Ecclesiae” 10 (1998), p. 196–203.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, coram Fagiolo, diei 22 semptembris 1992, Prot. N. 22036/90 CA, “Monitor Ecclesiasticus” 135 (2020), p. 81–83.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, Decretum, 3 maii 1995, Prot. N. 24388/93 CA, in: Ministerium iustitiæ: Jurisprudence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, ed. and transl. W. L. Daniel, Montréal 2011, p. 503–513.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, coram Caffarra, diei 21 maii 2011, Prot. N. 41719/08 CA, “Apollinaris” 85 (2012), p. 414–419.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, coram Ratzinger, decretum, diei 27 octobris 1984, Prot. N. 10977/79 CA, “Il diritto ecclesiastico” 96/2 (1985) 260–270.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, coram Sardi, diei 20 septembris 2012, Prot. N. 44731/10 CA, “Monitor Ecclesiasticus” 130 (2015), p. 351–358.
Supremum Signaturæ Apostolicæ Tribunal, coram Daneels, diei 2 octubris 2018, Prot. N. 52094/16 CA, “Ius Ecclesiae” 23 (2021) n.1, p. 241–251.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain the copyright and full publishing rights without restrictions, and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
