CLASSIFYING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: EFFECTS ON THE JUDICIAL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS
The objective of this paper is to analyse how different typologies of constitutional rights affect the resolution of conflicts between such rights in constitutional adjudication. It addresses the theoretical and practical complexity of rights conflicts by examining two influential models of classification: first, the model proposed by Luigi Ferrajoli, one of the most influential Italian legal philosophers, and second, the model developed by Juan Antonio García Amado, a well-known Spanish legal philosopher. The paper compares these typologies and examines their application to concrete judicial cases in order to assess how differing understandings of constitutional rights shape judicial reasoning and judicial outcomes. Through a comparative case analysis, the paper demonstrates that the classification of rights – particularly the classification of rights as, for example, “fundamental rights” or “social rights” – has significant implications for the methods and results of constitutional decision-making. The findings highlight the normative consequences of rights typologies and their role in structuring approaches to rights conflicts.
Keywords: constitutional rights, fundamental rights, normative conflicts, Luigi Ferrajoli, Juan Antonio García Amado.
Books, monographs and textbooks
Alexy, R. 2002. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Translated by Rivers, J. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferrajoli, L. 2001a. Diritti fondamentali. Bari: Editori Laterza.
Ferrajoli, L. 2013. La democrazia attraverso i diritti. Lecce: Editori Laterza.
García Amado, J. A. 2017. Decidir y argumentar sobre derechos. Mexico City: Tirant lo Blanch.
Klatt, M. & Meister, M. 2012. The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662463.001.0001
Pirker, B. 2013. Proportionality Analysis and Models of Judicial Review. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.
Dissertations
Keršić, M. 2022. Legal Methods for Resolving Apparent Conflicts between Fundamental Rights. PhD thesis. Genova: Faculty of Law, University of Genova. Available at: https://unige.iris.cineca.it/retrieve/874dbf9c-40a0-4d11-bb7a-14d201165c5d/phdunige_4617451.pdf.
Chapters in books/collections of papers
García Amado, J. A. 2009. El juicio de ponderación y sus partes. Una crítica. In: Alexy, R. (ed.), Derechos sociales y ponderación. Madrid: Fundación Colloquio Jurídico Europeo, pp. 249–331.
Martínez Zorrilla, D. 2018. Some Thoughts About the Limits of Alexy’s Conception of Principles and Balancing. In: Duarte, D. & Silva Sampaio, J. (eds.), Proportionality in Law: An Analytical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_9
Ortega García, R. 2017. Nota introductioria. In: García Amado, J. A. (ed.), Decidir y argumentar sobre derechos. Mexico City: Tirant lo blanch, pp. 17–19.
Ramião, R. 2018. Some Fundamental Problems Concerning Alexy’s Notion of Legal Principles. In: Duarte, D. & Silva Sampaio, J. (eds.), Proportionality in Law: An Analytical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_8
Ratti, G. B. 2009. A Note on the Logical Form of Legal Principles. Analisi e diritto, pp. 273–290.
Scholarly Articles
Alexy, R. 2003. On Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural Comparison. Ratio Juris, 16(4), pp. 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0952-1917.2003.00244.x
Alexy, R. 2014. Constitutional Rights and Proportionality. Revus, 22, pp. 51–65. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.2783
Atienza Rodríguez, M. 2008. Tesis sobre Ferrajoli. Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 31, pp. 213–216. https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA2008.31.11
Brożek, B. 2012. Legal Rules and Principles: A Theory Revisited. I-lex. Scienze Giuridiche, Scienze Cognitive e Intelligenza artificiale, 17, pp. 205–226.
Eberle, E. J. 1997. Public Discourse in Contemporary Germany. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 47(3), pp. 797–901.
Ferrajoli, L. 2001b. Fundamental rights. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 14, pp. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011290509568
Ferrajoli, L. 2011. Constitucionalismo principialista y constitucionalismo garantista. Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 34, pp. 15–53. https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA2011.34.02
Ferrajoli, L. 2012. El constitucionalismo entre principios y reglas. Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 35, pp. 791–817. https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA2012.35.33
García Amado, J. A. 2014. ¿Conflictos entre derechos fundamentales? Sobre ponderaciones y otros trucos y a propósito de dos sentencias españolas. Nuevos paradigmas de las ciencias sociales latinoamericanas, 5(10), pp. 7–46.
Keršić, M. 2024. Alternatives to judicial balancing: interpretative-subsumptive method according to Juan Antonio García Amado. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica, 70(4), pp. 31–42. https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2024.158
Moreso, J. J. 2012. Ways of Solving Conflicts of Constitutional Rights: Proportionalism and Specificationism. Ratio Juris, 25(1), pp. 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2011.00501.x
Pino, G. 2009. Principi e argomentazione giuridica. Ars Interpretandi. Annuario di ermeneutica giuridica, pp. 131–158.
Sardo, A. 2012. Three theories of judicial balancing: a comparison. Dignitas, 53/54, pp. 60–95.
Legal sources and case law
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html (31. 3. 2026).
BverfGE 86, 1-14, Order of 25 March 1992, 1 BvR 514/90. Available at: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/1992/03/rs19920325_1bvr051490.html (31. 3. 2026).
Constitution of the Italian Republic. Available at: https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf (31. 3. 2026).
Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. Available at: https://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/tekst/en/59/constitution-of-the-republic-of-serbia.php (31. 3. 2026).