Colisión de premisas de la argumentación: la ponderación de premisas en tres casos díficiles revisados por la corte constitucional colombiana
Visión General
Visión General
Abstracto
This article evaluates argumentation premises in three sentenced pronounced by Colombian Constitutional Court. From the argumentation theory, it should be stated the way how argumentation premises are faced and the way how such premises are selected for solving some "tutela" cases. It is particularly interesting to show how confrontation of different premises arises; that is, those relatedto facts confronted to those related to definitions and presumptions. The idea of "auditorio" is evaluated from cases proposed for indicating the concept of "auditorio" referred to in these sentences. This research is expected to show that Perelman's argumentation theory is a tool for understanding judicial decisions. This theory also allows making an analysis of what is commonly called a "difficult case".
