Adjudication contra legem

The project aims to justify adjudication contra legem. It demonstrates the lack of congruence between common sense about how judges decide and the actual practice that there are decisions that deviate from the traditional or consensual conception about the way the norm should be understood when constrained by semantics. Decisions contra legem, therefore, if not inevitable, are a reality in all judicial systems.
The problem with a decision contra legem is that it opposes the main features of modern society: democratic principle, separation of powers, the State’s duty to obey the law, etc.
When the decision contra legem is conceived as one that is willfully elaborated under traditional legal arguments, its cause is a dissatisfaction with the result of the traditional interpretation when applied to certain facts. Even so, this is not a necessary outcome; that is, it does not guarantee that all dissatisfaction will lead to a decision contra legem. Moreover, identifying the cause is also insufficient to justify the deviation that judges impose in their decisions.
The approach of this project indentifies in the structure of every legal norm presupposed characteristics of adequacy and determination (claim to adequacy and claim to determination), the theory describes a meta-normative conception of such claims without any link with morality or even with the semantic content of the norm, notwithstanding that it can be logically described. And it is this meta-normative framework that provides a normative site for justifying adjudication contra legem.