Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Parliamentary Debate as a Source of Justification for the Combat Against Gender Violence Act

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Debating Laws

Part of the book series: Legisprudence Library ((LEGIS,volume 10))

  • 37 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter analyses the debates held in the Spanish Parliament that resulted in the approval of the Act on the Combat against Gender Violence (Ley Orgánica 1/2004). Methodologically, the analysis starts by reconstructing how social and legislative debates on gender violence evolved in Spain, i.e. how the social problem was forged in the public sphere and by the mass media, how the debate reached the legislative stage, and how the parliamentarians amended—or attempted to amend—the proposed bill during the legislative procedure. Scholarly discussions following the passage of the law and its post-legislative impacts (including the judicial application of the law) are also considered. Throughout this reconstructive analysis of legislative argumentation on the combat against gender violence, the essay delves into a number of the legisprudential issues that can be identified in the MPs’ contribution to the shaping of this statute.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This methodology is similar to that suggested by Atienza (2019).

  2. 2.

    Regarding the this point, it is worth mentioning that the chapter’s findings confirm the nature of parliamentary debates as a source of legislative justification as in the ‘concentrate’ hypothesis. As will become clear below, the reconstruction of the debate analyzed reveals that the process of justification of the law passed began well before the bill reached parliament. Thus, especially in the case analyzed, the hypothesis that the reasons given by parliamentarians are only a ‘concentrate’ of a broader justification enterprise is confirmed.

  3. 3.

    Instead of “levels of rationality,” Oliver-Lalana (2013, pp. 141 and 155; cf. also 2018) prefers to speak of “levels of justification,” mainly for the sake of clarity.

  4. 4.

    Cf. Oliver-Lalana (2013, 2016, 2018).

  5. 5.

    Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales (Official Journal of the Spanish Parliament), Senate, III Term, no. 313, 12 May 1989, available at: http://www.senado.es/legis3/publicaciones/pdf/senado/bocg/I0313.PDF

  6. 6.

    In parallel, the feminist movement greatly contributed, at this stage, to the launch of a public debate on the reality of the mistreatment of women and to the consolidation of the idea that this structural fact is dependent on specific cultural and historical conditions. However, as we will see later, this feminist aspect was obscured by a legislative model that “explains” violence against women as a problem of “individual security” (cf. Bodelón 2012).

  7. 7.

    “El que habitualmente, y con cualquier fin, ejerza violencia física sobre su cónyuge o persona a la que estuviese unido por análoga relación de afectividad, así como sobre los hijos sujetos a la patria potestad, o pupilo, menor o incapaz sometido a su tutela o guarda de hecho, será castigado con la pena de arresto mayor” (Art. 425 of the Criminal Code as amended in 1989).

  8. 8.

    “El que habitualmente ejerza violencia física sobre su cónyuge o persona a la que se halle ligado de forma estable por análoga relación de afectividad o sobre los hijos propios o del cónyuge o conviviente, pupilos, ascendientes o incapaces que con él convivan o que se hallen sujetos a la potestad, tutela, curatela o guarda de hecho de uno u otro, será castigado con la pena de prisión de seis meses a tres años, sin perjuicio de las penas que pudieran corresponder por el resultado que, en cada caso, se causare” (Art. 425 of the 1995 Criminal Code).

  9. 9.

    The crime took place in the yard of the house in which the couple lived, although they had been separated for more than 2 years when the crime was perpetrated. The couple still lived together because the court ruling that decreed the separation forced them to continue cohabiting under the same roof: Ana Orantes lived with her two children on the first floor of the house, while her husband, José Parejo, lived on the floor below. According to the neighbours, aggression, fighting and quarrelling were frequent occurrences. The murder was preceded by a loud dispute, after which he beat her, tied her up, doused her with gasoline and set her on fire. The case was particularly salient because Ana Orantes, about a year earlier, had appeared on a TV show to denounce the constant ill-treatment from which she suffered. On the TV show Ana Orantes had recounted the beatings she had received and the forced sexual relations to which her husband had subjected her when he arrived home intoxicated, throughout the 40 years of their marriage (during which they had had eight children together). In addition, she said that she had denounced his aggression at least 15 times, and that she feared for her life. Ana Orantes was the 59th woman (out of 97) who died at the hands of her relatives during the year 1997. A memorial to her was built in Cúllar Vega, the town (near Granada) where the crime had occurred. José Parejo was sentenced to 17 years in prison, where he died in 2004.

  10. 10.

    Cf. Medina (2008, pp. 37 ff.). For more about this point, see Rey (2004).

  11. 11.

    See e.g. Benítez (1999) or Maqueda Abreu (2010).

  12. 12.

    Which, again, squares with the ‘concentrate’ hypothesis introduced in Chap. 1 of this book.

  13. 13.

    According to Nuria Varela (2013, p. 220), in the electoral campaign of 2000, all the candidates promised that if they won the elections they would enact a comprehensive law to fight violence against women. However, the winning candidate, José María Aznar, did not keep his promise. In this context, in December 2001, the Socialist Parliamentary Group in the Congress submitted a proposal for a comprehensive law against gender-based violence, but it was rejected—even though all parliamentary groups except the government group (the People’s Party) supported the bill. The LVG of 2004, therefore, was an old electoral promise of the Socialist Party.

  14. 14.

    The Royal Spanish Academy (Real Academia Española, RAE) – an official institution founded to ensure the stability of the Spanish language—went so far as to produce an in-depth opinion on the term “gender-based violence”. In a document of 13 May 2004, the RAE recommended the terms “domestic violence” or “gender-based violence”, rather than “gender violence”, since the latter form is an anglicism, a direct translation of the expressions used at the Fourth UN World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, gender-based violence or gender violence. The RAE recalled that, in the Spanish language, there is no tradition of using the word “gender” as a synonym for “sex”. On the other hand, it considered that the phrase “domestic violence” was more frequently used and might therefore be preferable. Finally, it warned that the legislative option ultimately adopted would have an impact on the common use of language, urging the government to revise the title of the law. The outcome is already known: the phrase “gender violence” was ultimately chosen to stress a socio-cultural category that implies differences or inequalities, inter alia, of a social, economic, political, or labour nature, whereas the term “domestic” alludes only to one of the contexts in which violence is exercised (cf. Velando 2005).

  15. 15.

    This is clear from the statement in the preamble to the law, which states that “the Act is intended to comply with the recommendations of international bodies to provide a comprehensive response to violence against women.”

  16. 16.

    The use of the term “gender” is ideologically charged, especially with regard to the explanation of this type of violence against women. Attaching a purpose of perpetuating “male domination” to this type of violence also suggests aggravated consequences, in particular the hindrance of equality between men and women. It is not necessary to emphasize that the description of violence against women offered by gender and feminist theories is far from enjoying a consensus. Other theoretical approaches give different explanations of the phenomenon, without resorting to such broad and structural formulations. In relation to this, they point out, for example, certain criminological or psychological perspectives.

  17. 17.

    Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Congress, VIII Term, no. A-2-1, 1 July 2004, pp. 1–31.

  18. 18.

    It is common ground that the parliamentary amendment was introduced with the aim of preventing the forthcoming law from being challenged before the Constitutional Court, since both males and females can be ‘particularly vulnerable’. The amendment also sought to extend protection to homosexual couples, as well as to minors and the elderly. However, its inclusion actually served a more practical objective, that of gathering the votes necessary to pass the law. The amendment clearly affects the coherence of the LVG, which in its spirit was focused on ‘gender-based’ violence. At the same time, it creates a kind of presumption of the special vulnerability of women, together with the correlative presumption of the dangerousness of male aggressors.

  19. 19.

    The term ‘legal aberration’ was used in reference to the bill, in addition to the suggestion that it implied a “two hundred years regression in criminal legal thought”. Cf. Martínez Buján (2004).

  20. 20.

    In Spain, the notion of positive discrimination comes close to that of affirmative action: roughly, positive discrimination measures favour certain underprivileged groups but have some negative impacts on persons outside these groups (while affirmative actions do not entail such negative impacts).

  21. 21.

    Cf. Rey et al. (2012), González Rus (2005), Rueda and Boldova (2004). On the other hand, for the argument that there is no problem, that is, that affirmative actions are compatible with criminal law, see Durán (2004) or Balaguer (2004).

  22. 22.

    Pursuant to Art. 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution, “all persons have the right of access to the ordinary judge predetermined by law”. The CGPJ report also addressed other issues it considered problematic. However, these details may be left aside here: it is enough to point to the pre-legislative argumentation delivered by the CGPJ, not only because of the importance of this institution, but, most importantly, because it represented a position manifestly contrary to the proposal then under discussion. This was precisely the most contentious moment of the debate on the LVG. During the legislative process, the objections disappeared.

  23. 23.

    Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Congress, VIII Term, no. 2-1, 1 July 2004.

  24. 24.

    http://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L8/CONG/BOCG/A/A_002-01.PDF

  25. 25.

    In certain contexts, such a wealth of amendments can also function as an instrument to stir up and slow down debates during the legislative procedure. However, in this case, it does not seem that this was the purpose, and the high number of amendments can be explained as a result of the praxis of the Spanish parliamentary system.

  26. 26.

    Available at: http://www.congreso.es

  27. 27.

    The sub-committee responsible for the LVG bill was made up of the following MPs: Uxue Barkos (Mixed Parliamentary Group), Rosa María Bonás (Republican Left of Catalonia Parliamentary Group), Susana Camarero (People’s Party Parliamentary Group), Esperanza Esteve (Socialist Parliamentary Group), María del Carmen García Suárez (United Left Parliamentary Group), María Virtudes Monteserin (Socialist Parliamentary Group), María Mercé Pigem i Palmés (Catalan Parliamentary Group), Román Rodríguez (Canarian Party-Nueva Canaria Coalition Parliamentary Group), Ana Tormé (People’s Party Parliamentary Group), Margarita Uría (Basque Parliamentary Group) and Julio Villarrubia (Socialist Parliamentary Group).

  28. 28.

    The report was published on 30 September 2004. See Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Congress, VIII Term, no. 2-6, 30 September 2004. Available at: http://www.congreso.es

  29. 29.

    Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Senate, no. II-1-c, 11 November 2004, pp. 49–141. Available at: http://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L8/SEN/BOCG/II/II0001C.PDF

  30. 30.

    Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Senate, no. II-1-d, 22 November 2004, pp. 143–188. Available at: http://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L8/SEN/BOCG/II/II0001D.PDF

  31. 31.

    Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Senate, no. II-1-e, 29 November 2004, pp. 189–236. Available at: http://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L8/SEN/BOCG/II/II0001E.PDF

  32. 32.

    Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Congress, no. A-2-9, 14 December 2004, pp. 121–193. Available at: http://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L8/CONG/BOCG/A/A_002-09.PDF

  33. 33.

    Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Congress, no. A-2-10, 29 December 2004, pp. 195–236. Available at: http://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L8/CONG/BOCG/A/A_002-10.PDF

  34. 34.

    Cf. Oliver-Lalana (2005, 2006, 2016).

  35. 35.

    Thus e.g. Uría (Basque Parliamentary Group), Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 91, 30 September 2004, pp. 7–8.

  36. 36.

    Bonás (Republican Left of Catalonia Parliamentary Group), Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 91, 30 September 2004, p. 8.

  37. 37.

    Pigem i Palmés (Catalan Parliamentary Group), Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 91, 30 September 2004, p. 8.

  38. 38.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 91, 30 September 2004, p. 7.

  39. 39.

    Camarero (PP Group) Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 91, 30 September 2004, p. 8.

  40. 40.

    Anyway, when analysing legislative argumentation in parliament, special attention must always be paid to those arguments aimed at delaying parliamentary discussions (cf. Bentham 1990). In addition to “argumentative tactics”, another less explored aspect concerns the tactics of the process itself (cf. Nascimento 2021a).

  41. 41.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1699.

  42. 42.

    For more about this point, see Oliver-Lalana (2008).

  43. 43.

    However, this issue was very controversial, for three reasons. The first was the legal-technical inappropriateness of this amendment. As will be seen in more detail below, the amendment in question was reproached for damaging the coherence of the bill—which was originally aimed at the protection of women only (against “gender violence”). The second was the breadth of the measures adopted, which were now protecting a much wider social group, thereby distorting the very nature of positive discrimination. Finally, as noted earlier, there was strong opposition to deploying positive discrimination of measures in the field of criminal law. Be that as it may, the amendment was an important modification of the bill introduced by the Spanish MPs.

  44. 44.

    The original argument ran as follows: “the bill has thus opted for an unequal right for equality, completely ignoring the other phenomenon of gender violence, that is, violence suffered by men, under the conviction of the favourable effects that unequal treatment, even in criminal matters, can generate in rebalancing unequal starting situations” (Diario de sesiones [Congress Record] no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1704).

  45. 45.

    This influence is particularly noticeable in excerpts like this: “The basic lines of action included in the bill consist in defining the object of the law, namely to act against a violence that is not just any violence whatsoever, but a violence that arises as a manifestation of discrimination, the situation of inequality and the power relations of men over women—and it is on the base of these relations that violence is exercised on women. This means that the law does not act on any type of violence, but on that which manifests socio-cultural patterns of conduct that place women in a situation of subordination or submission to men and that therefore constitute discriminatory practices. The bill thus combats gender-based violence, which is based on an idea of deep inequality between human beings and particularly between the female and male genders. This gender violence is exercised on women by those who are or have been their spouses or those who are or have been linked to them by family relationships of affectivity, even without cohabitation. That is to say, it is a violence, ladies and gentlemen, qualified by the unique relationship that the victim has with the aggressor, because it is in this area where this socio-cultural risk factor has its clearest expression” (Diario de Sesiones del Congreso [Congress Record] no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1705).

  46. 46.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1705.

  47. 47.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1705.

  48. 48.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1706.

  49. 49.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1706.

  50. 50.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1706.

  51. 51.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1707.

  52. 52.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1707.

  53. 53.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1708. Deputy Rodríguez also complained about the lack of time to discuss such a complex law and, again, thanked his fellow MPs for the effort and cooperation during the legislative process.

  54. 54.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 39, 7 October 2004, p. 1718.

  55. 55.

    Diario de Sesiones del Senado (Comisiones) (Senate Record, Committees) no. 79, 24 November 2004, p. 2 (Quintana, Mixed Parliamentary Group).

  56. 56.

    As claimed e.g. by Senator Loroño (Basque National Party Parliamentary Group), “the law does not contemplate all the cases of gender violence that occur in society, but perhaps the most lacerating or cruellest” (Diario de Sesiones del Senado (Comisiones) (Senate Record, Committees) no. 79, 24 November 2004, p. 3).

  57. 57.

    Diario de Sesiones del Senado (Comisiones) (Senate Record, Committees) no. 79, 24 November 2004, p. 3 (Loroño, Basque National Party Parliamentary Group).

  58. 58.

    Diario de Sesiones del Senado (Comisiones) (Senate Record, Committees) no. 79, 24 November 2004, p. 9.

  59. 59.

    Diario de Sesiones del Senado (Comisiones) (Senate Record, Committees) no. 79, 24 November 2004, p. 12.

  60. 60.

    Diario de Sesiones del Senado (Senate Record) no. 24, 2 December 2004, no. 24, pp. 1111–1138.

  61. 61.

    Diario de Sesiones del Senado (Senate Record) no. 24, 2 December 2004, no. 24, p. 1115 (Aleixandre i Cerarols, Convergència i Unió Parliamentary Group).

  62. 62.

    Diario de Sesiones del Senado (Senate Record) no. 24, 2 December 2004, pp. 1135–1136.

  63. 63.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 61, 22 December 2004, pp. 2928–2942.

  64. 64.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 61, 22 December 2004, p. 2939. Following this, the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs briefly took the floor, and the 12 amendments approved by the Senate were voted on. Some were approved and others were rejected, but I will not discuss this here, for it does not affect the legislative argumentation aspects that are my current concern.

  65. 65.

    Cf. Waldron (2006).

  66. 66.

    Diario de Sesiones del Congreso (Congress Record) no. 61, 22 December 2004, p. 2936 (Pigem i Palmés, Catalan Parliamentary Group).

References

  • Atienza M (1989a) Contribución para una teoría de la legislación. Doxa 6:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (1989b) Sociología jurídica y ciencia de la legislación. In: Bergalli R (ed) El Derecho y sus realidades: investigación y enseñanza de la sociología jurídica. Jornadas sobre la investigación y la enseñanza de la sociología jurídica, Barcelona, pp 41–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (1990) Para una teoría de la argumentación jurídica. Doxa 8:39–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (1997) Contribución a una teoría de la legislación. Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (2004) Argumentación y legislación. In: Menéndez A (ed) La proliferación legislativa: un desafío para el Estado de Derecho. Civitas, Madrid, pp 89–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Atienza M (2019) Un modelo de análisis de la argumentación legislativa. In: Oliver-Lalana AD (ed) La legislación en serio. Estudios sobre derecho y legisprudencia. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 343–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Balaguer ML (2004) Comentario al Proyecto de Ley Orgánica de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la violencia de género. Artículo 14, una perspectiva de género: Boletín de información y análisis jurídico, 16:22–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Benítez MJ (1999) Estudio de una regulación anunciada: El delito de maltrato habitual. Anuario de derecho penal y ciencias penales, tomo 52, Fasc/Mes 1–3, pp. 403–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham J (1990) Falacias políticas. Centro de Estudios Políticos Constitucionales, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodelón E (2012) Las políticas públicas contra la violencia patriarcal en España y en Brasil. Revista da EMERJ 15/57 (Edição Especial – I Encontro Internacional sobre violência de gênero Brasil-Espanha): 43–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Boldova MA, Rueda MA (2004) La discriminación positiva de la mujer en el ámbito penal: reflexiones de urgencia sobre la tramitación del Proyecto de Ley Orgánica de medidas de protección integral contra la violencia de género. Aequalitas: Revista jurídica de igualdad de oportunidades entre mujeres y hombres 15:65–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmena M (2005) Sobre por qué y para qué se hacen las leyes. Reflexiones ante la nueva Ley integral de Violencia de Género. Jueces para la Democracia 53:29–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Centenera Sánchez-Seco F (2011) ¿Podríamos haber tenido una ley de violencia de género de mayor calidad? Derechos y Libertades 25:237–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Durán M (2004), Análisis jurídico-feminista de la Ley Orgánica de Medidas de Protección integral contra la Violencia de Género. Artículo 14, una perspectiva de género: Boletín de información y análisis jurídico, 17:4–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskridge W, Ferejohn J (2001) Super-statutes. Duke Law J 50:1215–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eskridge W, Ferejohn J (2006) Super-statutes: the new American constitutionalism. In: Bauman R, Kahana T (eds) The least examined branch. The role of legislatures in the constitutional state. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 320–354

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • González Rus JJ (2005) La constituciónacionalidad (sic) de LO 1/2004, de medidas de protección integral contra la violencia de género, en relación con la reforma de los delitos de lesiones, amenazas y coacciones. In: Carbonell Mateu JC (ed) Estudios penales en homenaje al profesor Cobo del Rosal. Dykinson, Madrid, pp 483–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Maqueda Abreu ML (2010) 1989–2009: Veinte años de “desencuentros” entre la ley penal y la realidad de la violencia en la pareja. In: Laurenzo P (ed) La violencia de género en la ley: reflexiones sobre veinte años de experiencia en España. Dykinson, Madrid, pp 113–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Buján C (2004), Una rectificación insuficiente del Gobierno. La voz de Galicia, 28/06/2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Medina JJ (2008) Violencia contra la mujer en la pareja: investigación comparada y situación en España. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Morillas L (2002) Respuestas del Código penal ante la violencia doméstica. Propuestas de reforma. In: Morillas L (ed) Estudios penales sobre violencia doméstica. Edersa, Madrid, pp 659–688

    Google Scholar 

  • Morillas L (2003) El derecho penal y la violencia doméstica. In: Encuentros “Violencia Doméstica”. Consejo General del Poder Judicial, Madrid, pp 227–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento RS (2018) Teoria da legislação e argumentação legislativa na Espanha e no Brasil: análise dos cenários das leis sobre a violência contra a mulher. Tesis doctoral (Universidad de Alicante, Universidad de Brasília)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento RS (2019) Teoria da Legislação e Argumentação Legislativa: Brasil e Espanha em perspectiva comparada. Alteridade, Curitiba

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento RS (2021a) 13 Táticas Parlamentares para aprovação das leis. Revista Bonijuris 33(670):54–82. Available at: https://www.editorabonijuris.com.br/revista/revista-bonijuris/670/

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento RS (2021b) Teoría de la legislación y la argumentación legislativa. Olejnik, Santiago de Chile

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2005) Ponderación y racionalidad legislativa. Anuario del Área Socio-Jurídica, Facultad de Derecho – Universidad de la República (Uruguay) 2:105–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2006) Argumentación parlamentaria y legitimidad de las leyes. In: Cardinaux N et al (eds) Las razones de la producción del derecho: argumentación constitucional, argumentación parlamentaria y argumentación en la selección de jueces. UBA, Buenos Aires, pp 139–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2008) Los argumentos de eficacia en el discurso parlamentario. Doxa 31:533–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2013) Rational lawmaking and legislative reasoning in parliamentary debates. In: Wintgens L, Oliver-Lalana AD (eds) The rationality and justification of legislation. Springer, Cham, pp 135–184

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2014) Normas y razones: un estudio sobre argumentación legislativa. In: Grández P, Morales F (eds) La argumentación jurídica en el Estado Constitucional. Palestra, Lima, pp 491–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2016) ¿Le importa a alguien que los legisladores razonen? Lisbon Law Rev 57:5–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2018) Migliori e peggiori argomentazioni legislative. In: Ferraro F, Zorzetto S (eds) La motivazione delle leggi. Giapichelli, Torino, pp 67–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Lalana AD (2019) Deliberación legislativa y control judicial de las leyes. In: Oliver-Lalana AD (ed) La legislación en serio. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 397–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne R (2008) De la “violencia” (de género) a las “cifras de la violencia”: una cuestión política. Empiria Revista de Metodología de Ciencias Sociales 15:99–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey F (2004) Comentario a los informes del Consejo de Estado sobre el impacto por razón de género. Teoría y realidad constitucional 14:505–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey F et al (2012) Protección penal “desigual” y violencia de género. In: Huerta S, Pérez Manzano M (eds) Cuestiones actuales de la protección de la vida y la integridad física y moral. Thomson Reuters-Aranzadi, Pamplona, pp 631–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueda MA, Boldova MA (2004) La discriminación positiva de la mujer en el ámbito penal. La Ley: Revista jurídica española de doctrina, jurisprudencia y bibliografía 5:1574–1580

    Google Scholar 

  • Soto S (2005) La delincuencia en la agenda mediática. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 112:75–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Varela N (2013) Feminismo para principiantes. B De Bolsillo, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Velando M (2005) El movimiento feminista tomó la postura de la RAE como una resistencia a la causa (la lucha contra la violencia sobre la mujer). Revista de Estudios Culturales de la Universitat Jaume I II:107–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (1999) Law and disagreement. Clarendon, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2006) Principles of legislation. In: Bauman RW, Kahana T (eds) The least examined branch: the role of legislatures in the constitutional state. CUP, Cambridge, pp 15–32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zapatero V (2009) El arte de legislar. Aranzadi, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapatero V (2019) The art of legislating. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this chapter was presented in the International Conference on Legisprudence – Legislative argumentation and parliamentary justification of laws, held at the Faculty of Law of the University of Zaragoza on 16–18 December 2021. I would like to thank the participants at the conference for the productive debate and, especially, Daniel Oliver-Lalana for his generous invitation and his comments on previous versions of this work. This is a simplified part of a larger study (Nascimento 2019, 2021b) resulting from the doctoral thesis I completed at the University of Alicante under the supervision of Professor Manuel Atienza.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

    Roberta Simões Nascimento

Authors
  1. Roberta Simões Nascimento
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

    A. Daniel Oliver-Lalana

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nascimento, R.S. (2024). Parliamentary Debate as a Source of Justification for the Combat Against Gender Violence Act. In: Oliver-Lalana, A.D. (eds) Debating Laws. Legisprudence Library, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46727-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46727-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-46726-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-46727-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation