NORMATIVE COHERENCE INSUFFICIENCY

WHY DOES IT NOT FULLY JUSTIFY?

Abstract

The present is an investigation about two main questions, both on the role of normative coherence in the decisional context. Firstly, there is the concern whether coherence itself can be taken as a sufficient criteria for the justification of judicial answers, or not. That is if a decision is correctly justified for the simple fact of its internal coherence (the harmonious setting of its arguments in the particular argumentative system) and external coherence (the harmonious setting of its answer and concrete ruling and its effect on the normative sense of these given law systems) are satisfied. And secondly, if the first one is negatively answered, what are the other qualities that can be added to the justification analysis of one’s decision rationality and adequacy to the system and to the normative grounds of a given system of law? As a methodological guide to this investigation, the hypothetico-deductive method is used. But first things first, and the concept of coherence in the normative sense will need to be drawn while its role in the legal argumentation theory is better underlined. Then, it will be shown how coherence can be used to the rationalization of legal reasoning, or, in other words, how it can be used as a rational parameter of one’s argumentation. Lastly, if coherence itself is not enough, there will be the conceptual necessity for outlining what other qualities a system of arguments must have for it to can be considered as fully justified.