La botte piena e la moglie ubriaca, ovvero: i limiti del positivismo giuridico di Bruno Celano

Abstract

This paper proposes a critical analysis of Bruno Celano’s normative legal positivism. The main objections focuses on four crucial points of Celano’s theory: 1) the distinction between descriptive and normative jurisprudence, which is not taken in due account; 2) the underestimation of the role of interpretation in the legal domain; 3) the acritical acceptance of the source thesis; 4) the attempt of reconciling a procedural ideal of the Rule of Law with the substantial values of the contemporary constitutional States.