Sélectionner une page

LA QUESTION SOULÈVE-T-ELLE UNE DIFFICULTÉ SÉRIEUSE ?

Cahiers N°29 - RRJ 2015-5

DÉSACCORD ET ARGUMENTATION RAISONNABLE

Clovis CALLET

Docteur en droit, ATER à l’Université de Montpellier,
Aix Marseille Université, LTD (Laboratoire de théorie du droit)

Abstract

This article addresses a thesis supported by many judges and authors: a disagreement about the resolution of a legal problem amongst the community of lawyers reveals the existence of a serious difficulty, which governs the application of different procedural mechanisms, such as preliminary ruling procedure. Some claim that a question of interpretation or validity raises a serious difficulty, and then must be referred to the appropriate court, only because a disagreement can be observed. The article aims to demonstrate that such an argument cannot be accepted, and is, indeed, usually dismissed by courts. First, it is generally impossible to know when a disagreement really exists, let alone to know what a so-called disagreement is about. Second, it is logically impossible to link the existence of a disagreement, which is a statement about facts, with a normative proposition regarding the existence of a serious difficulty in the interpretation of the law.

Introduction
I. Les difficultés soulevées par l’identification du désaccord
II. Les difficultés soulevées par l’explication du désaccord
CONCLUSION
Share This
Aller au contenu principal