Theory of Interpretation and Legitimation of the Constitutional Tribunal

Abstract

This article reflects on the possibility of establishing, within the hermeneutical activity of Constitutional Courts, interpretive guidelines or principles that, once specified, could be used as a parameter to verify the legality of the alignment of effective constitutional life with the rules of the Constitution. This is achieved, firstly, by examining two issues: the role of jurisprudence within the system of legal sources and the criteria of interpretation as instruments suitable for either preventing or facilitating the consideration of said jurisprudence as a source of law; and, secondly, by examining the different hermeneutical instruments that serve as a link between legal provision and norm, and their interpretive outcomes. The aim is to demonstrate that the use of different criteria of interpretation cannot be evaluated by means of an external parameter, such as the dogmatic theory of interpretation, but rather that they are self-regulating; that is, the only possible control is a control of the consistency of their application.