On the main reasoning of a judicial judgment

Abstract

The dominant legal theory holds that the main reasoning of a judicial judgment is and must be a judicial syllogism. The present paper criticizes both theses and emphasizes that theses have their origin in misconceptions concerning three themes: the legal correction of judicial decisions, the application of the legal norms and the probative value of reasonings, the latter being the one that connects with the socalled «internal justification» of judicial decisions. In the final part, the paper questions the validity, the legality and the probative value of the main reasoning of a judicial judgment, and proposes a new model.