Abstract
This chapter serves to define and elaborate on different notions of legal certainty. Explaining legal certainty presupposes an understanding of the objectives and importance of the rule of law. The first chapter, therefore, briefly reviews what the rule of law means and how a legal system under the rule of law is organized. Legal certainty is an important element of it (Sect. 2.2). In outlining different notions of legal certainty (Sect. 2.3) and elaborating on the relationship between the legal certainty, the rule of law and other principles of law (Sect. 2.4) the chapter refers to peculiarities regarding the Latin American legal systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Waldron (2008), pp. 45–47.
- 2.
Lyons explains the classic and contemporary ideas about positivism. He reviews the differences between divine law, positive law and positive morality according to Austin, Hart and Dworkin. See Lyons (1977), pp. 416–418.
- 3.
According to Waldron, there is a threshold for the existence of the rule of law. These minimal requirements are described by Waldron in part V of his essay. They are: Courts as norm applying institutions, public norms, positive rules, orientation to the public good, and systematicity. For more detail, see Waldron (2008), pp. 19–36.
- 4.
Clark writes that the importance of the state in ancient Greece relied on its authority to enact the laws that would organize social life and would limit the selfishness of individuals. At that point in history, the first notions of the social contract were born to separate moral from law and to allow legal rules to organize society without the interference of individual preferences. According to the author, Epicureo developed the ideas of separating the state from the individual whose main role in life is pursuing his own happiness and the necessity of preserving people from the tyranny of the authorities. See Clark (1999), pp. 28–29. See also De la Hidalga (2008), pp. 215–218.
- 5.
Beaulac (2007), pp. 3–4.
- 6.
- 7.
Bastiat (1968), p. 3.
- 8.
Waldron (2008), p. 31.
- 9.
- 10.
Clark (1999), p. 32.
- 11.
Beaulac (2007), pp. 5–6.
- 12.
Waldron (2008), pp. 55–56.
- 13.
Waldron mentions that positivity requires the lawmaker’s use of imagination and creativity. See Waldron (2008), p. 31.
- 14.
Clark criticizes some modern doctrines of the rule of law that prefer formal aspects of law over substantive aspects. Laws based on mere formality are, according to him, usually unfair and compatible with tyrannic regimes. See Clark (1999), pp. 32–33.
- 15.
Waldron (2008), pp. 14–16.
- 16.
See, e.g., Ungar (2002), p. 20, on how the law is the basis for state action.
- 17.
Gordillo (2012), IADA–II–1–3.
- 18.
See, e.g., López Guerra (1980), pp. 22–23, for more on the legal personality of the state.
- 19.
Gordillo (2012), IADA–II–1–3.
- 20.
Epstein (2011), pp. 190–192.
- 21.
See, for instance, Constitution of Chile Art. 7 para 1 [English Translation of Constitución Política de la República de Chile, Gazeta Oficial, 24 October 1980] [hereinafter Const. Chile]: “[T]he organ of the State act validly, with the prior regular investiture of their members, within their field of competence, and in the form that the law prescribes.”
- 22.
See, for instance, Constitution of Colombia with Amendments through 2015 Art. 260 [English Translation of Constitución Política de Colombia, Diario Oficial No. 49.554, 25 June 2015] [hereinafter Const. Colombia] that lays out that the citizens “elect in a direct manner the President and Vice President of the Republic, senators, representatives, governors, deputies, mayors […]” among others.
- 23.
Const. Chile Art. 78 on Supreme Court selection: “Ministers and judicial prosecutors of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President of the Republic, choosing from a list of five people that, in each case, will be proposed by the same Court with the agreement of the Senate.[…]” According to Art. 239 Const. Colombia, the “judges of the Constitutional Court shall be elected by the Senate of the Republic […] from lists presented to it by the President of the Republic, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Council of State.”
- 24.
For instance, according to Art. 98 Const. Chile, the General Comptroller “[…] will be designated by the President of the Republic with the agreement of the Senate […]”. According to Art. 264 Const. Colombia, the members of the National Election Commission, “are elected by the Congress of the Republic […] on the basis of proposals submitted by the political parties or movements with legal personality or by coalitions formed between them.”
- 25.
Article IV of the Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo General [General Act of Administrative Procedure of Peru, Official Diary of 10 April 2001] lays down legality as one of the principles that govern the competences of the public administration. This article states that “the administrative authorities must respect the Constitution, the legislation and the law, within scope of the allocated powers and in accordance with the purposes for which they were conferred on them. (1.1) [Own Translation]” See also Rafael Selume Sacaan v. Congreso Nacional de Chile, TC Chile, Sentencia Rol No. 472, 30 August 2006.
- 26.
Epstein explains that there is a direct connection between the rule of law and democracy because the rule of law prevents the tyranny of autocratic rulers. Moreover, in the context of democracy the rule of law shall avoid the “tyranny of the majority” by setting some minimum standards that must be respected even by the majority of people deciding in elections. See Epstein (2011), p. 13 and pp. 190–191.
- 27.
O’Donnell (2004), pp. 32–33.
- 28.
- 29.
To read more about impunity within the Latin American judicial system, see Mainwaring (2003), p. 22.
- 30.
O’Donnell (2004), p. 42.
- 31.
Prillaman (2000), p. 2. See also Shirk and Rios Cazares (2007), pp. 3–7, explaining how during the transition from dictatorships to democracy that took place in the 1980s and 1990s the new political authorities focused on enhancing the perception of a legitimate delegation of sovereignty rather than on the traditional elements of the rule of law. State representatives had incentives to satisfy people’s expectations and favored a system of redistribution of wealth to legitimize the new regimes at the expense of the rule of law. People, on the other hand, accepted violations of the key elements of the rule of law to achieve “social justice”.
- 32.
Ungar (2002), pp. 20–23.
- 33.
Shirk and Rios Cazares (2007), pp. 3–7.
- 34.
Morris (1992), pp. 11–12.
- 35.
Schedler (1999), p. 159.
- 36.
Schor (2006), p. 4.
- 37.
Waldron (2008), p. 28.
- 38.
O’Donnell (2004), p. 35.
- 39.
According to Maxeiner, even if Americans have resignated to live with legal indeterminacy, the opposite, legal certainty is still a guiding principle of European law. See Maxeiner (2006), p. 543.
- 40.
Epstein (2011), p. 14.
- 41.
Von Hayek (2005), pp. 75–76.
- 42.
Epstein (2011), pp. 20–21.
- 43.
See Popelier (2000), p. 339.
- 44.
Levy (1996), p. 189.
- 45.
Krajewski explains how the GATS (General Agreement on Trade and Services) embody certain elements of legal certainty such as transparency and clear and precise scheduling. At the same time, the GATS recognize the right of state members to introduce new regulations. See Krajewski (2014), pp. 89–90.
- 46.
See, e.g., Wroblewsky (1975), pp. 318–319. Wroblewsky explains that legal security and legal certainty are often considered the same.
- 47.
Oxford Dictionary, Definition of certainty in English.
- 48.
Oxford Dictionary, Definition of security in English.
- 49.
Wroblewsky (1975), p. 314.
- 50.
Sarlet (2010), pp. 8–9.
- 51.
Francisco Javier Lara Sabogal v. Congreso de la República de Colombia, CCC, Sentencia C-634-11, 24 August 2011.
- 52.
Const. Colombia Art. 1.
- 53.
According to the Art. 2 Const. Colombia, “[t]he essential goals of the state are […] to guarantee the effectiveness of the principles, rights and duties stipulated by the Constitution […].”
- 54.
The Const. Colombia Art. 5 states that state authorities are obliged to “recognize, without any discrimination whatsoever, the primacy of the inalienable rights of the individual […].”
- 55.
According to the Const. Colombia Art. 3, the representatives of the people must perform their functions “within the limits established in the Constitution.”
- 56.
The Const. Colombia Art. 4 establishes: “The Constitution provides the norm of regulations. In all cases of incompatibility between the Constitution and the statute or other legal regulations, the constitutional provisions shall apply.” Furthermore, “[i]t is the duty of citizens and of aliens in Colombia to obey the Constitution and the laws, and to respect and obey the authorities.”
- 57.
In consonance with the Const. Colombia Art. 6: “Individuals are solely responsible before the authorities for violations of the Constitution and the laws.”
- 58.
In this sense, according to the Constitution of Mexico Art. 27 (XIX) [English Translation of the Political Constitution of the Mexican States, Gazeta de la Federación, 5 February 1917] [hereinafter Const. Mexico]: “the State shall establish the measures required to provide agrarian justice in a prompt and honest manner, in order to guarantee legal certainty in land ownership.”
- 59.
Percy Rogelio Zevallos Fretel v. Sala Civil Transitoria de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Huánuco, TC Peru, Sentencia Exp. No. 05448, 13 June 2012.
- 60.
Colegio de Notarios de Junín v. Congreso de la República de Perú, TC Perú, Sentencia Exp. No. 016, 30 April 2013. See also Scotiabank Perú S.A.A. v. Quinta Sala de lo Civil de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima, TC Perú, Sentencia Exp. No. 037, 25 January 2012, and Corporación Pesquera San Fermín S.A. v. Cuarta Sala de lo Civil de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima, TC Perú, Sentencia Exp.No. 02835, 13 December 2012.
- 61.
Arpires Luis Daniel v. Estado Nacional Ministerio de Justicia Seg y Der. Humanos Policía Federal s/Accidente en el ámbito militar y Fzas. de Seg, CJSN Argentina, Fallos: 7944:2004, 5 February 2009.
- 62.
Irene Gwendoline and others v. Instituto de Educación Integral San Patricio S.R.L, CJSN Argentina, Fallos: 330:5345, 18 December 2007.
- 63.
Control constitucionalidad “Ley Tasa de Aranceles a las Importaciones”, TC Chile, Sentencia Rol No. 280, 20 October 1998.
- 64.
Waldron (2008), p. 34.
- 65.
This is also considered this way in Latin America. For instance, Banco de Crédito e Inversiones v. Congreso Nacional de Chile, TC Chile, Sentencia Rol No. 574, 13 March 2007, the TC Chile refers to the principle of legal certainty as a general principle of public law that demands a reasonable stability of the legal situations and a “correct access to the rights.”
- 66.
Bernitz et al. (2008), p. 26.
- 67.
Raitio (2003), p. 125.
- 68.
Wroblewsky (1975), pp. 313–314.
- 69.
Braithwaite (2002), p. 69.
- 70.
O’Donnell (2004), p. 34.
- 71.
Burgoa and Carlos (2011), pp. 62–63.
- 72.
Ratio explains that legal certainty requires a balance with other principles of law, like the principles of legality and proportionality. The search for proportionality demands a balance between the private and the public interest. See Raitio (2003), pp. 116–117.
- 73.
Bernitz et al. (2008), p. 26.
- 74.
Paunio explains that there are two different “reasons” that judges apply to justify their decisions: authority reasons (rules, precedent, and doctrine) and substantive reasons (principles). Furthermore, Paunio explains that in the context of adjudication there is also an important difference between principles and policies. From a judicial reasoning perspective, principles prevail over policies because they are linked to individual rights while policies are linked to society goals. Legal certainty falls within substantive reasons for adjudication and while being a principle, legal certainty has also deep importance for policy. For this reason, legal certainty can be considered a “meta-principle”. See Paunio (2013), pp. 60–63.
- 75.
Federal Civil Code of Mexico Art. 19 [Código Civil Federal de México, Diario Oficial de la Federación, 26 May, 14 July, 31 August, 1928] [hereinafter Civ. Code Mexico] prescribes that “when the meaning of the law is clear, its wording cannot be disregarded under the excuse of consulting its spirit. But it is possible to interpret an obscure legal expression by consulting the intentions or spirit clearly manifested in the law, or in the reliable history of its establishment [Own Translation].” See also the Civil Code of Colombia Art. 27 [Código Civil de Colombia, Diario Oficial No. 46.494, 27 December 2006] [hereinafter Civ. Code Colombia] for instance, in case of legal gaps or obscurity in civil cases in Mexico, judicial decisions must be made according to the general principles of law. The Const. Mexico Art. 14 para 4: “In civil trials, final sentence must agree with the law writing or the legal interpretation thereof. In the case of lack of the appropriate law, sentence must be based on the general principles of law.”
- 76.
Calderón (2009), p. 183.
- 77.
Popelier (2000), p. 340.
- 78.
In Europe, specifically in Germany, there is a huge interest in the prevalence of the principle of legal certainty. Legal certainty is entrenched in the German legal framework through practical methods of law making and law applying. See Maxeiner (2006), pp. 551–552.
- 79.
- 80.
Popelier (2000), p. 328.
- 81.
Waldron (2008), pp. 34–35.
- 82.
Popelier (2000), p. 340.
- 83.
- 84.
De Logue (2005), pp. 251–252.
- 85.
De Logue explains that when the substantive content of tax law is uncertain people tend to calculate their probability of a sanction for noncompliance and decide accordingly whether to attach to the legal rules or not. They also calculate the probabilities of “detection” and when it is low, they tend to take the risk of non-complying with the law. See Ibid., pp. 245–252, 267, 278.
- 86.
Rivero Ortega (2013), pp. 51–52.
- 87.
Villegas (1993), p. 40.
- 88.
Civ. Code Mexico Art. 9: “The law is repealed only by a subsequent law that expressly declares so or that contains provisions that are wholly or partially incompatible with the previous law. [Own Translation]”.
- 89.
- 90.
For more on “uncertainties in language and law”, see Paunio (2013), p. 12.
- 91.
Raban explains the differences between clearly written rules and flexible standards. See Raban (2010), pp. 175–190.
- 92.
Civ. Code Colombia Art. 27: “Grammatical interpretation. When the meaning of the law is clear, it is not possible to disregard its literal wording as an excuse to consult its spirit. But it is possible to interpret a dark legal expression by interpreting its clearly manifested intention or spirit or the reliable story of its establishment [Own Translation].” Furthermore the Civ. Code Colombia Art. 28 states: “Meaning of the words. The words of the law will be understood in their natural and obvious sense, according to their general use, but when the legislator has expressly defined them in some subjects, they will be given their legal sense [Own translation].”
- 93.
Paunio (2013), p. 83.
- 94.
Braithwaite (2002), p. 55.
- 95.
Waldron (2008), pp. 32–33.
- 96.
Paunio departs from Dworkin’s idea of law as an integrity or global coherence of the legal system. For more on the different notions of coherence, see Paunio (2013), pp. 83–84.
- 97.
Popelier (2000), p. 330.
- 98.
Civ. Code Colombia Art. 30: “The context of the law will help to illustrate the sense of each one of its parts, so there must be among them due correspondence and harmony. The dark passages of a law can be illustrated by other laws, particularly if they are concerned with the same subject [Own Translation].”
- 99.
Popelier (2000), p. 335.
- 100.
For a clarification on the importance of a stable taxation regime for entrepreneur, see Epstein (2003), pp. 81–82.
- 101.
Ibid., p. 69.
- 102.
Oropeza Barboza (n.d.), p. 70.
- 103.
Van Alstine (2001), p. 1305.
- 104.
Ibid., p. 1306.
- 105.
Epstein (2003), p. 76.
- 106.
For more on the costs of legal transitions, see Epstein (2003), pp. 81–85.
- 107.
For more on how legal transition costs affect the administration of justice, see Van Alstine (2001), pp. 1314–1316.
- 108.
Paunio (2013), p. 2.
- 109.
Suominen (2014), pp. 6–7.
- 110.
Waldron (2008), pp. 20–21.
- 111.
It is claimed that legal certainty and justice are not the same. Even though foreseeability of the legal outcomes protects people from the arbitrary action of public officials it does not guarantee fairness in the content of the legal provisions nor in the judicial adjudication. Legal certainty and justice are two objectives of the rule of law that can be in conflict. Some argue that it is more important for the rule of law to be certain than to be just. The reason is that if people know with certainty that acting in some way will produce negative consequences, they can prevent themselves from committing deeds that can trigger negative legal outcomes. Moreover, even though people may feel distressed by a conflicting situation, it is a much greater distress for people to find themselves at risk of committing an illegal act and carrying the consequences. This can be the case when the law is obscure, the legal provisions are not consistent among each other or because the law was changed from one day to the other. Nevertheless, legal certainty and justice are complementary concepts because both are pillars of a system under the rule of law. The president of the Supreme Court of Justice of Brazil has manifested that legal certainty is a pivotal principle for the effectiveness of justice. Legal rules must provide predictability and the legal decisions must be rationally acceptable to increase the likelihood of fair judicial decisions. See Krajewski (2014), p. 79; see also Neuhaus (1963), p. 796.
- 112.
Waldron (2008), p. 8.
- 113.
Maxeiner explains that legal rules have unavoidably legal vacuums because it is impossible for legislators to address all the cases, all the conditions for a legal situation to arise, use an accurate language and avoid subjectivity at doing all this. See Maxeiner (2006), p. 555.
- 114.
Rodriguez Yong (2008), p. 422.
- 115.
Levi (2013), p. 502.
- 116.
Maxeiner (2006), p. 558.
- 117.
Paunio (2013), p. 3.
- 118.
Ibid., p. 87.
- 119.
Waldron (2008), p. 20. If the courts must decide cases of civil nature, they determine rights of private parties. In criminal cases, they must act like the coercive arm of the society against actions that disturb the peaceful life of a community. In administrative cases the courts may protect the interests of the in front of the state. In constitutional cases, they may determine the attachment of the actions, functions and duties of authorities to the constitution. Among the countries in analysis only Mexico and Colombia have specialized courts to deal with administrative issues between government officials or administrative agencies. Mexico has the “Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo” and Colombia the “Consejo de Estado.” In the other countries, the competence to decide about administrative controversies lies with civil courts or tribunals.
- 120.
Waldron explains that judges decide by projecting the inherent logic of the law to the controversy or uncertainty of a case. See Waldron (2008), p. 35.
- 121.
According to Dam, there are two types of judicial independence: “structural independence” and “behavioral independence.” Structural independence entails the autonomy of the courts as an institution within the state. Behavioral independence entails the real freedom in the practice that individual judges have to make decisions. See Dam (2006), p. 16. Shetreet explains that to achieve an accurate degree of behavioral independence the judicial branch must enjoy leeway to decide about the appointment and dismissal of their members, their salaries, or their tenure. See Shetreet (1979), p. 57.
- 122.
Jordao and Rose-Ackerman explain that the role of the courts of justice should go beyond the protection of people’s rights and try to balance democracy with those rights and with the technical functions of state organisms. See Jordao and Rose-Ackerman (2014), p. 4.
- 123.
Epstein (2007), p. 9.
- 124.
Ibid.
- 125.
Neuhaus (1963), pp. 802–803.
- 126.
Paunio (2013), p. 32.
- 127.
The Civil Code of Peru [Código Civil de Perú, Official Journal, 25 July 1984] [hereinafter Civ. Code Peru] made it an obligation for the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the General Fiscal of the Nation to report cases of obscurity that complicate the clear interpretation and application of the law to Congress. Civ. Code Peru Art. X: “The Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court (*) and the Attorney General are required to report to the Congress the gaps or deficiencies in legislation. Judges and prosecutors have the same obligation with respect to the corresponding upper court. [Own Translation]”.
- 128.
Maxeiner (2006), p. 555.
- 129.
Paunio explains how multilingualism is a challenge for courts (in this case the ECJ) whose semantic discussions about the meaning of single words show that judges most of the time try to attach to the wording of the law. See Paunio (2013), p. 32.
- 130.
Maxeiner (2006), pp. 577–578.
- 131.
Epstein (2007), p. 9.
- 132.
On more about discretion as an essential element of positivism, see Kress (1984), pp. 372–373.
- 133.
Epstein (2007), p. 9.
- 134.
- 135.
- 136.
Levi (2013), p. 2.
- 137.
Braithwaite (2002), p. 51.
- 138.
Steiner (2005), p. 32.
- 139.
Paunio (2013), p. 95.
- 140.
To read more on an analysis of Scalia’s Argument for Discretion-Constraining Norms, see Solum (2002), pp. 10–12.
- 141.
Dam mentions that in Brazil cases are seldom decided based on precedent. In Brazil cases are mostly decided on a fully individual basis, without considering previous decisions on the same topic. The consequence is the increased uncertainty on issues whose outcome should be clear from the beginning. See Dam (2006), p. 14.
- 142.
Shetreet (1979), pp. 62–63.
- 143.
According to Oropeza Barboza the publication must follow a process of promulgation. See Oropeza Barboza (n.d.), p. 68. This process is specified in the Civil Codes of the countries: Consolidated, Coordinated and Systematized Text of the Civil Code Law No. 4,808; about the Civil Registry Law No. 17,344; Minors Law No. 14,908; about Family Abandonment and Payment of Food Pensions and the Law No. 16,271 about Tax on Inheritance, Allocations and Donations [Texto Refundido, Coordinado y Sistematizado del Código Civil; de la Ley No. 4.808, sobre Registro Civil, de la Ley No. 17.344, que Autoriza Cambio de Nombres y Apellidos, de la Ley No. 16.618, Ley de Menores, de la Ley No. 14.908, sobre Abandono de Familia y Pago de Pensiones Alimenticias, y de la Ley No. 16.271, de Impuesto a las Herencias, Asignaciones y Donaciones, Diario Oficial, 30 May 2000] [hereinafter Civ. Code Chile]. According to Art. 6 Civ. Code Chile, “the law is only binding once it is enacted according to the Constitution State and published in accordance with the following precepts. [Own Translation]” Civ. Code Chile Art. 7: “The law shall be published in the Official Journal, and from the date hereof the law is known and mandatory to all. For all legal purposes, the date of the law is the date of its publication in the Official Journal. However, any law may establish different rules about publication and the date or dates on which it takes effect. [Own Translation]”.
Civil and Commercial Code of the Argentine Republic [Código Civil y Comercial de la Nación, Boletín Oficial, 8 October 2014] [hereinafter Civ. Code Argentina] Art. 2: “Laws are only mandatory after their publication and from the date that is determined. If there is not determined date, they will be mandatory after eight days following their official publication. [Own Translation]” See also Civ. Code Mexico Art. 3; Civ. Code Colombia Art. 12.
- 144.
Maxeiner (2006), p. 603.
- 145.
Popelier (2000), p. 329.
- 146.
Ibid.
- 147.
Ibid., pp. 329–330.
- 148.
Braithwaite (2002), p. 57.
- 149.
Rhode (2001), p. 1793.
- 150.
Shetreet (1979), p. 63.
- 151.
Ibid., pp. 55–56.
- 152.
To read more about the necessary changes in the judicial system in Mexico, see Shirk and Rios Cazares (2007), p. 1.
- 153.
- 154.
O’Donnell (2004), p. 40.
- 155.
Wroblewsky (1975), p. 314.
- 156.
The principle of protection of legitimate expectations could be argued as the subjective perspective of legal certainty. According to Popelier, provided there is a perception of objective legal certainty people build legitimate expectations which are defined as “the certainty a subject of law has about the realization of his own expectations and what legal consequences will follow from his actions.” See Popelier (2000), p. 340. See also Craig (1996), p. 303 claiming: “The natural role of legitimate expectations is, however, to reflect individual’s perspective and the value of legal certainty.”
- 157.
Villegas (1993), p. 36.
- 158.
For more on real legal certainty as the objective of implementation of the law, see Otto (2002), pp. 23–25.
- 159.
Villegas (1993), p. 33.
- 160.
Santiago Huertas Bequis v. Colegio Ateneo Moderno de Santa Marta y su Rector Alfredo Almenares Barros, CCC, Sentencia T-256, 13 June 1993.
- 161.
- 162.
The legal frameworks of our six Latin American countries include the principle of non-retroactivity of the law in their constitutions. For instance, the Const. Colombia Art. 29, establishes that “Due process shall be applied in all cases of legal and administrative measures. Guarantee of due process No one may be judged except in accordance with previously written laws which shall provide the basis of each decision before a competent judge or tribunal following all appropriate forms.” The Const. Mexico Art. 14 para 1: “No law will have retroactive effect in detriment of any person.” See also Juan Rafael Bravo Arteaga v. Congreso de la República de Colombia, CCC, Sentencia C-549, 29 November 1993. See also Constitution of Peru Art. 2 [English Translation of Constitución Política del Perú, Diario Oficial, 30 December 1993] [hereinafter Const. Peru], prescribes that as part of people’s right to freedom and personal security “a. No one is obliged to do what the law does not command, nor prevented from doing what the law does not prohibit. b. No restrictions whatsoever to personal freedom shall be permitted, except in cases provided by the law. Slavery, servitude, and traffic in human beings are prohibited in any form. […] d. No one shall be prosecuted or convicted for any act or omission that, at the time of its commission, was not previously prescribed in the law expressly and unequivocally as a punishable violation, or did not constitute an offense penalized by law.[…]” The Constitution of Brazil Art. 5 [English translation of the Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil, Diario Oficial da União, 5 October 1988] [hereinafter Const. Brazil], prescribes that all persons are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever, Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country being ensured of inviolability of the right to life, to liberty, to equality, to security and to property, on the following terms: “XXXIX. - There is no crime without a previous law to define it, nor a punishment.”
- 163.
Maxeiner (2006), p. 559.
- 164.
Popelier (2000), p. 333.
- 165.
Craig (1996), p. 304.
- 166.
Banco de Crédito e Inversiones v. Congreso Nacional de Chile, TC Chile, Sentencia Rol No. 574, 13 March 2007.
- 167.
For the wording, see Raitio (2003), p. 129.
- 168.
Craig (2006), p. 553.
- 169.
Raitio (2003), p. 129.
- 170.
Steiner (2005), p. 1.
- 171.
Craig (1996), p. 305.
- 172.
For a comprehensive understanding of legal retroactivity in the context of tax law, see Graetz (1977), p. 49.
- 173.
Epstein (2003), pp. 78–82.
- 174.
Epstein (2003), pp. 86–87.
- 175.
For a more detailed explanation of the principle nullum crimen, nulla peoena sine lege stricta, (scripta), praevia, see Mokhtar (2005), pp. 41–47.
- 176.
Steiner (2005), p. 2.
- 177.
Control constitucionalidad “Ley de Caza”, TC Chile, Sentencia Rol No. 244, 26 August 1996. The nulla poena sine lege apllies also for administrative sanctions because they are also punitive. Administrative sanctions “are punitive in nature cannot be imposed unless they have a clear and unambiguous legal basis. See: Raitio (2003), p. 159.
- 178.
Const. Colombia Art. 29 para 3: “In criminal law, permissive or favorable law, even when ex post facto, shall be applied in preference to restrictive or unfavorable alternatives.” See also Const. Brazil Art. 5 (XL), “penal law shall not be retroactive, except to benefit the defendant.” See also Mokhtar (2005), p. 49.
- 179.
Popelier (2000), p. 327.
- 180.
Raitio (2003), p. 200.
- 181.
Popelier (2000), pp. 333–334.
- 182.
Reynolds (2011), pp. 330–337.
- 183.
Steiner (2005), p. 2.
- 184.
Ibid., p. 23, 2.
- 185.
Ibid., pp. 1–2.
- 186.
Ibid.
- 187.
Reynolds (2011), pp. 337–341.
- 188.
- 189.
Paunio (2013), pp. 61–62.
- 190.
Krajewski (2014), pp. 80–81.
- 191.
Craig (1996), p. 298.
- 192.
Ibid., p. 292.
- 193.
Ibid., p. 303.
- 194.
Maxeiner (2006), pp. 561–562.
- 195.
Lachmann (1971), p. 114.
- 196.
Kingsbury and Schill (2009), pp. 8–12. See also CMS Gas Transmission Company. v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID, Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005, para 274. Similarly, Occidental Exploitation and Production Company (OEPC) v. the Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, LCIA Case No. UN3467, Final Award, July 2004, para 183. Those cases are used in Kingsbury and Schill (2009), p. 10.
- 197.
Craig (1996), p. 303.
- 198.
Reynolds explains that both, the principle of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations are creations of German law. Within the German legal framework, they are clearly differentiated. Legal certainty (Rechtssicherheit) stresses the importance of certainty of the content of the law. The protection of legitimate expectations (Vertrauensschutz) focuses on protecting people who trusted that the actions of the public authorities are legal. The principle of protection of legitimate expectations has in this context a specific target that is the actions of the public administration. However, the protection of legitimate expectations can be applied even against legislation threatening the basic requirements of legal certainty such as stability of the legal rules. See Reynolds (2011), pp. 340–341.
- 199.
The principle of protection of legitimate expectations overlaps also with other principle like proportionality, fairness, abuse of power, good administration. See Reynolds (2011), p. 330. Retroactivity and good faith. The principle of proportionality requires a deeper understanding of the influence that legal rules and public decisions can have on people. See Thomas (2000), pp. 15–16.
Proportionality also requires that legal rules are realistic in their demands. See Popelier (2000), p. 337. From the perspective of law enforcement, the principle of proportionality seeks to avoid arbitrariness in the actions of state officials. Then authorities’ actions cannot override fundamental rights and should not do more than what is necessary to achieve their goals. See Raitio (2003), pp. 97–98.
The principle of protection of legitimate expectations is considered the “technical form” of the principle of fairness. It specifically means “the right to fair treatment at the hands of the public authority.” Further, it is argued that the principle of protection of legitimate expectations is an “application of the principle of abuse of power” that seeks to avoid “unfairness of the public authority”. Reynolds (2011), p. 332.
At the center of the principle of good faith of the administration is the idea of that even though ignorance about the law does not exclude people from the consequences of not applying the law, this is not only in the responsibility of the individual if the authorities have contributed to unlawful action by providing the wrong information either through inaccurate advice or inconsistency in the public actions. See Kuusikko (2001), pp. 458–459, 469.
- 200.
The Supreme Federal Tribunal of Brazil (the organ in charge of constitutionality control) considers the protection of legitimate expectations as version of legal certainty especially regarding electoral topics. See Vicente de Paula de Souza Guedes v. Ministério Público Eleitoral, STF Brasil, Recurso Extraordinario No. 637.485. 1 August 2012.
- 201.
Rodriguez Yong (2008), p. 422. See also Carlos A. Ballesteros B v. Gobierno de la República de Colombia, CCC, Sentencia C-314, 1 April 2004.
- 202.
Banco de Crédito e Inversiones v. Congreso Nacional de Chile, TC Chile, Sentencia Rol No. 574, 13 March 2007.
References
Bastiat F (1968) The law. Laissez Faire Books
Beaulac S (2007) An inquiry into the international rule of law, EUI Max Weber Program Services Working Paper 14. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1074562
Bernitz U, Nergelious J, Cardner C, Groussot X (2008) General principles of EC law in a process of development: reports from a conference in Stockholm 23–24 March. Swedish Network for Legal Studies, Kluwer Law International
Braithwaite J (2002) Rules and principles: a theory of legal certainty. Aust J Legal Philosophy 27:47–82. Available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ajlph27&div=6&id=&page=
Burgoa T, Carlos A (2011) La Deóntica Jurídica como Clave de la Interpretación de las Leyes Fiscales. Contaduría y Administración 235:57–76. Available at http://www.cya.unam.mx/index.php/cya/article/view/419
Calderón G (2009) Seguridad Jurídica y Derecho Penal. Revista de Estudios de la Justicia 11:181–199. Available at http://web.derecho.uchile.cl/cej/rej11/OLIVER%20_14_.pdf
Clark D (1999) The many meanings of the rule of law. In: Jayasuriya K (ed) Law, capitalism and power in Asia: the rule of law and legal institutions. Routledge, New York, pp 28–44
Craig P (1996) Substantive legitimate expectations in domestic community law. Cambridge J 55(2):289–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300098184
Craig P (2006) EU Administrative Law. Oxford University Press
Dam K (2006) The Judiciary and Economic Development. University of Chicago Law School, Chicago Unbound, Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics No. 287. Available at http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1536&context=law_and_economics
De la Hidalga L (2008) Teoría General del Estado. Editorial Porrúa, México
De Logue K (2005) Optimal tax compliance and penalties when the law is uncertain. Virginia Tax Rev 25(339):241–296. Available at http://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_archive/art66/
Epstein R (2003) Beware of Legal transitions: a presumptive vote for the reliance interest. J Contemp Legal Iss 13(69):69–92. Available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/contli13&div=9&id=&page=
Epstein R (2007) How progressives rewrote the constitution. Cato Institute
Epstein R (2011) Design for liberty: private property, public administration and the rule of law. Harvard University Press
Fondation pour le droit continental (2015) Index of Legal Certainty: Report for the Civil Law Initiative. Available at http://www.fondation-droitcontinental.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NS_Rapport-complet-5-juin-2015_EN.pdf
Gordillo A (2012) Tratado de Derecho Administrativo y Obras Selectas. Tomo 5, Primeras Obras, Fundación de Derecho Administrativo. Available at http://www.gordillo.com/pdf_tomo5/tomo5.pdf
Graetz M (1977) Legal transitions: the case of retroactivity in income tax revision. Univ Pa Law Rev 126(1):47–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/3311758
Gribnau H (2013) Equality, legal certainty and tax legislation in the Netherlands. Fundamental legal principles as checks on legislative power: a case study. Utrecht Law Rev 9(2):52–74
Jordao E, Rose-Ackerman S (2014) Judicial review of executive policy making in advanced democracies: beyond rights review. Adm Law Rev 66(1):1–71. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2419994
Kingsbury B, Schill S (2009) Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law. NYU School of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper 9(46). Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1466980
Krajewski M (2014) Balancing legal certainty with regulatory flexibility. In: Lim A, De Meester B (eds) WTO domestic regulation and services trade–putting principles into practices. Edward Elgar, pp 79–94
Kress K (1984) Legal reasoning and Coherence: Dworkin’s rights thesis, retroactivity and the linear order of decisions. Calif Law Rev 72(3):369–402. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480482
Kuusikko K (2001) Advice, good administration and legitimate expectations: some comparative aspects. Eur Public Law 7(3):455–472
Lachmann L (1971) The legacy of Max Weber. The Glendessary Press. Available at https://mises.org/system/tdf/The%20Legacy%20of%20Max%20Weber_2.pdf?file=1&type=document
Levi E (2013) An introduction to legal reasoning. University of Chicago Press
Levy D (1996) Does an independent Central Bank violate democracy? J Post Keynes Econ 18(2):189–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.1995.11490068
López Daza GA (2011) El juez constitucional colombiano como legislador positivo: ¿un gobierno de los jueces? Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional 24:169–193. Available at http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S1405-91932011000100005&script=sci_arttext
López Guerra L (1980) Sobre la Personalidad Jurídica del Estado. Revista del Departamento de Derecho Político, Universidad de Extremadura 6:17–35. Available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39c0/87cb40675664b2c4c5b06babad47faae99d0.pdf
Lyons D (1977) Principles, positivism and legal theory. Yale Law J 87(2):415–435. https://doi.org/10.2307/795657
Mainwaring S (2003) Introduction: Democratic accountability in Latin America. In: Mainwaring S, Welna C (eds) Democratic accountability in Latin America. Oxford University Press, pp 3–33
Maxeiner J (2006) Legal certainty: a European alternative to American legal indeterminacy. Tulane J Int Law Company Law 15(541):545–607. Available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tulicl15&div=20&id=&page=
Maxeiner J (2008) Some realism about legal certainty. Houst J Int Law 31(1):27–46. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1230457
Mokhtar A (2005) Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege: aspects and prospects. Statute Law Rev Oxford University Press 26(1):41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmi005
Morris SD (1992) Corrupción y Política en el México contemporáneo. Siglo XXI
Neuhaus P (1963) Legal certainty and equity in the conflict of laws. Law Contemp Probl 28(4):795–807. https://doi.org/10.2307/1190565
O’Donnell G (2004) The quality of democracy: why the rule of law matters. J Democr 15(4):32–46. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0076
Oropeza Barboza A (n.d.) La Seguridad Jurídica en el Campo del Derecho Privado. Revista de la Escuela de Derecho de Puebla 2:61–80. Available at https://revistas-colaboracion.juridicas.unam.mx/index.php/juridica-libre-puebla/article/view/570/520
Otto J (2002) Toward an analytical framework: real legal certainty and its explanatory factors. In: Chen J, Li Y, Otto J (eds) Implementations of law in the People’s Republic of China. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp 23–34
Paunio E (2013) Legal certainty in multilingual EU law: language, discourse and reasoning at the European Court of Justice. Ashgate Publishing Limited
Popelier P (2000) Legal certainty and the principles of proper law making. Eur J Law Reform 2(3):321–342. Available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ejlr2&div=27&id=&page=
Prillaman W (2000) The Judiciary and democratic decay in Latin America: declining confidence in the rule of law. Greenwood Publishing Group
Raban O (2010) The fallacy of legal certainty: why vague legal standards may be better for capitalism and liberalism. Public Interest Law J 19(175):175–190
Raitio J (2003) The principle of legal certainty in EC law. Kluwer Academic Publishers
Reynolds P (2011) Legitimate expectations and the protection of trust in public officials. Public Law 2:330–352
Rhode D (2001) Access to Justice. Fordham Law Rev 69(1785):1785–1819. Available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/flr69&div=65&id=&page
Rivero Ortega R (2013) Derecho Administrativo Económico. Sexta Edición, Marcial Pons
Rodriguez Yong C (2008) Enhancing legal certainty in Colombia: the role of the Andean community. Mich State J Int Law 17(407):408–463. Available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mistjintl17&div=17&id=&page=
Sarlet WI (2010) A eficácia do Direito Fundamental à Segurança Jurídica: Dignidade da Pessoa Humana, Direitos Fundamentais e Proibição de Retrocesso Social no Direito Constitucional Brasileiro. Revista di Direito Social 14(21):1–38. Available at http://www.direitodoestado.com/revista/rere-21-marco-2010-ingo-sarlet.pdf
Schedler A (1999) The self-restraining state: power and accountability in new democracies. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Available at https://books.google.de/books?id=MD8Vx1HLOZgC&dq=zedillo+judicial+reform+abuse+of+power&lr=&hl=de&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Schor M (2006) Constitutionalism through the looking glass of Latin America. Texas Int Law J 41(1):1–38. Available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tilj41&div=6&id=&page=
Shetreet S (1979) The administration of justice: practical problems, value conflicts and changing concepts. I.B.C. Law Rev 13(52):52–80. Available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ubclr13&div=8&id=&page
Shirk D, Rios Cazares A (2007) Introduction: reforming the administration of Justice in Mexico. In: Cornelius W, Shirk D (eds) Reforming the administration of Justice in Mexico. University of Notre Dame Press, pp 1–50. Available at http://www3.undpress.nd.edu/excerpts/P01130-ex.pdf
Solum L (2002) A Law of Rules: A Critique and Reconstruction of Justices Scalia’s View of the Rule of Law. Loyola Law School (Los Angeles) Public Law and Legal Theory, Research Paper No. 5. Available at http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lawrence_Solum/publication/228168419_A_Law_of_Rules_A_Critique_and_Reconstruction_of_Justice_Scalia's_View_of_the_Rule_of_Law/links/540a06a40cf2d8daaabf9ebf.pdf
Steiner E (2005) Judicial ruling with prospective effect – from comparison to systematization. In: Steiner E (ed) Comparing the prospective effect of judicial ruling across Jurisdictions, Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law 3:1–23. Available at http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-16175-4
Suominen A (2014) What role for legal certainty in criminal law within the area of freedom, security and Justice in the EU? Bergen J Crim Law Just 2(1):1–31. https://doi.org/10.15845/bjclcj.v2i1.615
Thomas R (2000) Legitimate expectations and proportionality in administrative law. Hart
Ungar M (2002) Elusive reform: democracy and the rule of law in Latin America. Lynne Rienner Publishers
Van Alstine M (2001) Treaty law and legal transition costs. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 77:1303–1324. Available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/chknt77&div=43&id=&page=
Villegas H (1993) El Contenido de la Seguridad Jurídica. Revista Impuestos. Available at http://www.ipdt.org/editor/docs/02_Rev26_HBV.pdf
Von Hayek F (2005) The Road to Serfdom, Reprint 2005. Routledge Classics, London and New York
Waldron J (2008) The concept of the rule of law. Georgia Law Rev 43(1):1–54. Available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/geolr43&div=4&id=&page
Wroblewsky J (1975) Functions of law and legal certainty. Anuario de Filosofía del Derecho 17:313–321
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Legal References
Legal References
2.1.1 Constitutions
-
Constitution of Colombia with Amendments through 2015 [English Translation of Constitución Política de Colombia, Diario Oficial No. 49.554, 25 June 2015]. Constitute Project, University of Texas at Austin, available at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Colombia_2015.pdf
-
Constitution of Mexico [English Translation of the Political Constitution of the Mexican States, Gazeta de la Federación, 5 February 1917], Constitute Project, University of Texas at Austin, available at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mexico_2015.pdf?lang=en
-
Constitution of Peru [English Translation of Constitución Política del Perú, Diario Oficial, 30 December 1993], Congress of the Republic of Peru, available at http://www.congreso.gob.pe/Docs/files/CONSTITUTION_27_11_2012_ENG.pdf [Last accessed on November 11, 2018].
2.1.2 Legislation
2.1.2.1 Argentina
-
Civil and Commercial Code of the Argentine Republic [Código Civil y Comercial de la Nación, Boletín Oficial, 8 October 2014].
2.1.2.2 Colombia
-
Civil Code of Colombia [Código Civil de Colombia, Diario Oficial No. 46.494, 27 December 2006].
2.1.2.3 Chile
-
Consolidated, Coordinated and Systematized Text of the Civil Code Law No. 4,808; about the Civil Registry Law No. 17,344; Minors Law No. 14,908; about Family Abandonment and Payment of Food Pensions and the Law No. 16,271 about Tax on Inheritance, Allocations and Donations [Texto Refundido, Coordinado y Sistematizado del Código Civil; de la Ley No. 4.808, sobre Registro Civil, de la Ley No. 17.344, que Autoriza Cambio de Nombres y Apellidos, de la Ley No. 16.618, Ley de Menores, de la Ley No. 14.908, sobre Abandono de Familia y Pago de Pensiones Alimenticias, y de la Ley No. 16.271, de Impuesto a las Herencias, Asignaciones y Donaciones, Diario Oficial, 30 May 2000].
2.1.2.4 Mexico
-
Federal Civil Code of Mexico [Código Civil Federal de México, Diario Oficial de la Federación, 26 May, 14 July, 31 August 1928].
2.1.2.5 Peru
-
Civil Code of Peru [Código Civil de Perú, Diario Oficial, 25 July 1984].
-
General Act of Administrative Procedure of Peru [Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo General, Official Journal, 10 April 2001].
2.1.3 Case Law
2.1.3.1 ICSID
-
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID, Case No. ARB/01/8, Award of 12 May 2005, para 274.
2.1.3.2 UNCITRAL
-
Occidental Exploitation and Production Company (OEPC) v. the Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, LCIA Case No. UN3467, Final Award of July 2004, para 183.
2.1.3.3 Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación [Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina]
-
Arpires Luis Daniel v. Estado Nacional Ministerio de Justicia Seg y Der. Humanos Policía Federal s/Accidente en el ámbito militar y Fzas. de Seg,CJSN Argentina, Fallos: 7944:2004, 5 February 2009.
-
Irene Gwendoline y otros v. Instituto de Educación Integral San Patricio S.R.L, CJSN Argentina Fallos: 330:5345, 18 December 2007.
2.1.3.4 Supremo Tribunal Federal do Brazil [Supreme Federal Court of Brazil]
-
Vicente de Paula de Souza Guedes v. Ministério Público Eleitoral, Supreme Federal Court of Brazil, Recurso Extraordinario No. 637.485. 1 August 2012.
2.1.3.5 Tribunal Constitucional de Chile [Constitutional Tribunal of Chile]
-
Control constitucionalidad “Ley de Caza”, TC Chile, Sentencia Rol No. 244, 26 August 1996.
-
Control constitucionalidad “Ley Tasa de Aranceles a las Importaciones”, TC Chile, Sentencia Rol No. 280, 20 October 1998.
-
Rafael Selume Sacaan v. Congreso Nacional de Chile, TC Chile, Sentencia Rol No. 472,30 August 2006.
-
Banco de Crédito e Inversiones v. Congreso Nacional de Chile, TC Chile, Sentencia Rol No. 574, 13 March 2007.
2.1.3.6 Corte Constitucional de Colombia [Constitutional Court of Colombia]
-
Santiago Huertas Bequis v. Colegio Ateneo Moderno de Santa Marta y su Rector Alfredo Almenares Barros, CCC, Sentencia T-256, 13 June 1993.
-
Juan Rafael Bravo Arteaga v. Congreso de la República de Colombia, CCC, Sentencia C-549, 29 November 1993.
-
Carlos A. Ballesteros B v. Gobierno de la República de Colombia, CCC, Sentencia C-314,1 April 2004.
-
Francisco Javier Lara Sabogal v. Congreso de la República de Colombia, CCC, Sentencia C-634-11, 24 August 2011.
2.1.3.7 Tribunal Constitucional del Perú [Constitutional Tribunal of Peru]
-
Scotiabank Perú S.A.A. v. Quinta Sala de lo Civil de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima, TC Perú, Sentencia Exp. No. 037, 25 January 2012.
-
Percy Rogelio Zevallos Fretel v. Sala Civil Transitoria de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Huánuco, TC Peru, Sentencia Exp. No. 05448, 13 June 2012.
-
Corporación Pesquera San Fermín S.A. v. Cuarta Sala de lo Civil de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima, TC Perú, Sentencia Exp.No. 02835, 13 December 2012.
-
Colegio de Notarios de Junín v. Congreso de la República de Perú, TC Perú, Sentencia Exp. No. 016, 30 April 2013.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tapia-Hoffmann, A.L. (2021). Legal Certainty. In: Legal Certainty and Central Bank Autonomy in Latin American Emerging Markets. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70986-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70986-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-70985-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-70986-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)