The constitutional normative gaps: their integration through logical and quasi-logical arguments

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibilities of filling constitutional normative gaps through the use of logical and quasi-logical arguments. To this end, a distinction is made between apparent and genuine gaps: the former are resolved by means of logical inferences from enacted norms (systematic logical argument, argument a contrario); on the other hand, genuine gaps cannot be filled by means of logical arguments, but, at most, by means of quasi-logical arguments (by analogy, a fortiori, a pari). For the correct use of these arguments, we study, in general, which constitutional legal statements can be subject to restrictive interpretation and which cannot.