Ulteriori informazioni
This book seeks to explore the potential and actual value of parliamentary debates as a source of legislative justification. Drawing on a sample of recent Spanish legislation, the papers collected here analyse (critically) the rationale of several laws or legislative measures as it can be reconstructed from the respective parliamentary discussions. All issues covered have given rise to intense political, legal and social controversy: they range from the combat against gender violence, the legal status of bullfighting, the protection of crime victims and the so-called 'push-backs' at the border, to the regulation of euthanasia, the minimum living income, underage girls' access to abortion, and joint child custody. The volume is organised into two main parts. The first group of case studies adopt a legisprudential perspective and examine parliamentary deliberations in the light of the theory and methodology of legislative justification; the contributions in the second part followapproaches that fall outside - but are largely compatible with -legisprudence, and deal with aspects such as the rhetorical strategies employed by MPs when debating bills, and the role of elected legislators as constitutional interpreters.
Sommario
1 Legislative Debates in Parliament as a Source of Statutory Justification. AFramework for Analysis and Evaluation.- 2 Was It Really 'To No Avail'? The Legislative Deliberation on Underage Girls' Access to Abortion in Spain.- 3 Legislative Debates on Death with Dignity and Euthanasia. An Approach to the Spanish Situation.- 4 Debating on the Rights of Crime Victims: A Legisprudential Examination of the Parliamentary Deliberation on the Spanish Victim Protection Act.- 5 Expelling, Discussing, and Throwing Values Out - The Parliamentary Debate on the Citizen Security Act and the 'Push-backs' at the Moroccan-Spanish Borders.- 6 Parliamentary Debate as a Source of Justification for the Combat against Gender Violence Act.- 7 Parliamentary Debates on Joint Custody Legislation.- 8 Parliamentary Debates on Bullfighting in Spain: Animals Lost in Translation?.- 9 Minimum Vital Income: A Legislative Debate from the 'Participant-Observer' Perspective.- 10 InterpretingFundamental Rights from the (Parliamentary) Bench. Notes on Constitutional Argumentation in Legislative Debates.
Info autore
A. Daniel Oliver-Lalana, Dr. iur., LL.M. (Genova), is professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Zaragoza. His publications include
Legitimidad a través de la comunicación (2011),
Derecho y cultura de protección de datos (2012, with J.F. Muñoz),
Conceptions and misconceptions of legislation (2019, ed.),
La legislación en serio (2019, ed.),
Rational lawmaking under review (2016, co-edited with K. Meßerschmidt),
The rationality and justification of legislation (2013, co-edited with L. Wintgens) and
Derechos fundamentales, principios y argumentación (2011, co-edited with L. Clérico and J. Sieckmann).
