Algunos problemas básicos para la aplicación de la lógica al derecho

This paper identifies and analyzes three fundamental logical problems that affect the rational reconstruction of legal systems. In particular, it demonstrates that the commonly accepted notion of conditional norms—widely used by jurists and legislators—leads to logical inconsistencies that undermine the structure of law as a coherent set. The introduction of defeasibility into legal conditionals fails to resolve these issues, either by weakening the inferential power of norms or by reintroducing the same logical difficulties. These challenges prompt a critical examination of the notion of logical consequence within the legal domain. Given the lack of a unified and universally accepted definition of legal consequence, it becomes impossible to fully determine the scope and applicability of legal norms. One of the main conclusions of this discussion is that, contrary to dominant views, logical analysis is essential for uncovering the deep logical flaws of legal systems. In short, to claim that law is "illogical," one must rely on logic.