THE JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND THE TRUTH CONDITIONS OF LEGAL PRPOSITIONS UNDER THE HART AND DWORKIN’S DEBATE

Abstract

In a context of relativization the division between creation and application of the law, the article aims to analyze, under the analytical and conceptual perspective of philosophy, the problem of the degree of interpretative freedom, the (in) determination of law, the existence or not of correct answer and the need for judicial discretion in the strong or weak sense, from the study of the truth of legal propositions conditions and discussions about the possibility of objectively true interpretative judgments through realism and semantic anti-realism. The bibliographical research of qualitative approach focuses on the analysis of Hartian positivism and the interpretativism of Ronald Dworkin. Contrary to Dworkin's theory that even in difficult cases legal propositions present a truth value, research is aligned with Hartian thinking, which considers that the existence of difficult cases leads to the indeterminacy of law and to the idea that certain propositions lack the value of truth.

Keywords

• condições de verdade, discricionariedade
• interpretativismo
• positivismo
• resposta correta.