Advertisement

The Principle of Proportionality, Rights Theory and the Double Effect Doctrine

  • Juan CianciardoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 70)

Abstract

This chapter aims to state which, if any, is the connection between the legal principle of reasonableness and the moral principle of double effect, taking into account that they share an analogous purpose and that the actions which they refer to are also similar in structure. While the former purports to grant rights the latter purports to grant human goods that, in both cases, are taken to be universal and absolute. Actions regulated through the double effect principle and the principle of reasonableness share a common structure; that is, actions with a direct end and a foreseen but not directly willed effect. The second purpose is to argue that while the double effect principle deals with its major problem (respecting the absolute nature of human goods) in a quite satisfactory way, some interpretations of the legal principle of reasonableness fail to guarantee the absolute nature of rights.

Keywords

Narrow Sense Legal Reasoning Collateral Effect Double Effect Constitutional Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aarnio, Aulius. 2000. Reglas y principios en el razonamiento jurídico. Anuario da Facultade de Dereito de Universidade da Coruña 4: 593–602.Google Scholar
  2. Akehurst, Michael. 1992. The application of general principles of law by the Court of Justice of the European Communities. British Year Book of International Law 1981: 29–51.Google Scholar
  3. Alexy, Robert. 1998. Derechos, razonamiento jurídico y discurso racional. In Derecho y razón práctica, 2nd ed, ed. W. Orozco, 21–33. México: Fontamara.Google Scholar
  4. Alexy, Robert. 2003. On balancing and subsumption. Ratio Iuris 16: 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexy, Robert. 2006. Discourse theory and fundamental rights. In Arguing fundamental rights, ed. Agustín Menéndez and Erik Oddvar Eriksen, 15–29. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexy, Robert. 2007. The weight formula. In Frontiers of the economic analysis of law, vol. 3, ed. Jerzy Stelmach, Bartosz Brożek, and Wojciech Załuski, 9–27. Cracow: Jagiellonian University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Alexy, Robert. 2011. Los derechos fundamentales y el principio de proporcionalidad. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 31: 11–29.Google Scholar
  8. Alexy, Robert. 2012. Rights and liberties as a concepts. In The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law, ed. Rosenfeld Michel and Sajó András, 283–297. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Alexy, Robert. 2002a. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Trans. J. Rivers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Alexy, Robert. 2002b. The Argument from Injustice. A Reply to Legal Positivism. Trans. S.L. Paulson and B.L. Paulson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Alexy, Robert. 2005. La institucionalización de la justicia, ed. J.A. Seoane. Trans. J.A. Seoane, E.R. Sodero and P. Rodríguez. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
  12. Auby, J.M. 1979. Le contrôle jurisdictionnel du degré de gravité d’une sanction disciplinaire. Revue de Droit Public et de la Sciencie Politique en France et a l’étranger. enero-febrero: 227–238.Google Scholar
  13. Barak, Aharon. 2012. Proportionality. Constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Barnes, Javier. 1994. Introducción al principio de proporcionalidad en el Derecho comparado y comunitario. Revista de la Administración Pública 135: 495–499.Google Scholar
  15. Beauchamp, Tom, and James Childress. 1989. Principles of biomedical ethics, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bermann, George A. 1978. The principle of proportionality. The American Journal of Comparatice Law XXVI: 415–432.Google Scholar
  17. Boyle, Joseph. 1980. Toward understanding the principle of double effect. Ethics 90–4: 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boyron, Sophie. 1992. Proportionality in English Administrative Law: A faulty translation? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 12: 237–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Braibant, Gregorie. 1974. Le principe de proportionnalité, Mélanges offerts a Marcel Waline. Le juge et le droit public, vol. t. II, 297–306. Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et Jurisprudence.Google Scholar
  20. Cianciardo, Juan. 2007. El ejercicio regular de los derechos constitucionales. Análisis y crítica del conflictivismo. Buenos Aires: Ad-hoc.Google Scholar
  21. Cianciardo, Juan. 2009. El principio de razonabilidad. Del debido proceso sustantivo al moderno principio de proporcionalidad, 2nd ed. Ábaco: Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  22. Cianciardo, Juan. 2010. The principle of proportionality: The challenge of human rights. Journal of Civil Law Studies 3: 177–186.Google Scholar
  23. Comanducci, Paolo. 2003. Formas de (neo)constitucionalismo: una análisis metateórico. In Neoconstitucionalismo(s), ed. Miguel Carbonell, 75–98. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
  24. Cotta, Sergio. 1987a. El derecho en la existencia humana. Trans. I. Peidró Pastor. Pamplona: Eunsa.Google Scholar
  25. Cotta, Sergio. 1987b. Itinerarios humanos del Derecho. Trans. J. Ballesteros. Pamplona: Eunsa.Google Scholar
  26. Cruz, Luis M. 2006. Estudios sobre el neoconstitucionalismo. México: Porrúa.Google Scholar
  27. Emiliou, Nicolas. 1996. The principle of proportionality in European law. A comparative study. London: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  28. Finnis, John. 2011. Natural law and natural rights, 2nd ed. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  29. Gavara de Cara, Juan Carlos. 1994. Derechos fundamentales y desarrollo legislativo: la garantía del contenido esencial de los derechos fundamentales en la Ley fundamental de Bonn. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.Google Scholar
  30. García Llerena, Viviana. 2012. El principialismo bioético y sus interlocutores. Notas críticas a la bioética contemporánea. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
  31. Gascón Abellán, Marina. 1990. Obediencia al Derecho y objeción de conciencia. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.Google Scholar
  32. Georgiadou, A.N. 1995. Le principe de la proportionnalité dans le cadre de la Jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice de la Communauté Européenne. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 81: 532–541.Google Scholar
  33. Gündisch, Herbert-Jürgen. 1983. Allgemeine Rechtsgrundsätze inder Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshof. In Das Wirtschaftsrecht des Gemeinsamen Marktes in der aktuellen Rechtsentwicklung. Baden-Baden: 97.Google Scholar
  34. Hervada, Javier. 2008. Introducción crítica al derecho natural. Buenos Aires: Ábaco.Google Scholar
  35. Hirschl, Ran. 2004. Towards juristocracy. The origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jiménez Campo, Javier. 1983. La igualdad jurídica como límite al legislador. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 9: 71–114.Google Scholar
  37. Landau, David. 2010. Political institutions and judicial role in comparative constitutional law. Harvard International Law Journal 51: 319–374.Google Scholar
  38. Linares, Juan F. 2010. Razonabilidad de las leyes. El “debido proceso” como garantía innominada en la Constitución Argentina. Buenos Aires: Astrea.Google Scholar
  39. Masek, Lawrence. 2010. Intentions, motives and the doctrine of double effect. The Philosophical Quaterly 60–240: 567–585.Google Scholar
  40. McIntyre, Alison. 2014. Doctrine of double effect, The Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), ed. E.N. Zalta, forthcoming URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/double-effect/
  41. Miranda, Alejandro. 2008. El principio de doble efecto y su relevancia en el razonamiento jurídico. Revista Chilena de Derecho 35–3: 485–519.Google Scholar
  42. Orrego, Cristóbal. 2010. Supuestos conflictos de derechos humanos y la especificación de la acción moral. Revista Chilena de Derecho 37–2: 311–342.Google Scholar
  43. Prieto Sanchís, Luis. 1990. Estudios sobre derechos fundamentales. Madrid: Debate.Google Scholar
  44. Prieto Sanchís, Luis. 2004. El constitucionalismo de los derechos. Revista española de Derecho Constitucional 71: 47–72.Google Scholar
  45. Rivas, Pedro. 1999. Notas sobre las dificultades de la doctrina de la ponderación de bienes. Persona y Derecho 41–2: 105–119.Google Scholar
  46. Schwarze, Jürgen. 1992. European administrative law. Luxembourg: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  47. Serna, Pedro. 1998. El derecho a la vida en el horizonte cultural europeo de fin de siglo. In El derecho a la vida, ed. Carlos Massini and Pedro Serna, 23–79. Pamplona: EUNSA.Google Scholar
  48. Serna, Pedro. 2005. Presentación. In La Constitución como orden de valores. Problemas jurídicos y políticos, ed. Luis M. Cruz, XIII–XIX. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
  49. Serna, Pedro. 2002. Proyecto docente y de investigación, A Coruña.Google Scholar
  50. Serna, Pedro, and Fernando Toller. 2000. La interpretación constitucional de los derechos fundamentales. Una alternativa a los conflictos de derechos. Buenos Aires: La Ley.Google Scholar
  51. Urbina, Francisco. 2012. A critique of proportionality. American Journal of Jurisprudence 57: 49–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Webber, Grégoire C.N. 2010. Proportionality, balancing, and the cult of constitutional rights scholarship. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence XXIII–1: 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Willoughby, Westel Woodbury. 1929. The constitutional law of the United States. New York: Baker, Voorhis and Company.Google Scholar
  54. Zambrano, Pilar. 2005. La disponibilidad de la propia vida en el liberalismo político. Buenos Aires: Ábaco.Google Scholar
  55. Zambrano, Pilar. 2012. L’orizzonte comprensivo delle nostre pratiche costituzionali. Ars Interpretandi 12: 135–157.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de NavarraPamplonaSpain

Personalised recommendations