Description
(Text)
The legal argumentation of constitutional courts, for instance on human dignity, has been in the centre of interest both from theoretical and practical perspectives. This book addresses the role of legal argumentation at first in general, covering empirical and comparative perspectives on constitutional argumentative practices. It also comprises a comparative assessment of constitutional argumentation versus the arguments deployed by other courts as well as by decision-makers. Secondly, the book focuses on how constitutional courts reason with human dignity. This concept takes many different shapes, though very rarely in an objective fashion. It is embedded in several western constitutions, although constitutional courts and scholars tend to disagree on its meaning and content. Finally, the book aims to shed light on the controversial topic of human dignity from a normative and philosophical perspective.
(Author portrait)
Miguel Nogueira de Brito is an Associate Professor of Public Law at the University of Lisbon - Law School and Senior Research Fellow at the Lisbon Centre for Public Law. His main fields of research are constitutional theory, fundamental rights, and constitutional law.Rachel Herdy is Professor of Legal Theory at the National Law School of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Her main fields of research are legal epistemology and legal argumentation.Giovanni Damele is a researcher and Guest Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Social and Human Sciences of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa. His main fields of research include philosophy of law, philosophy of politics, argumentation theory and rhetoric.Pedro Moniz Lopes is an Assistant Professor of Public Law at the University of Lisbon - Law School, Senior Research Fellow at the Lisbon Centre for Public Law and member of LxLTG (Lisbon Legal Theory Group). His main fields of research are legal theory and legal science, constitutional and administrative law and human rights.
