NEITHER DWORKIN, NOR WALDRON: THE DILIMMA OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE

Abstract

In its own complex formulation, Ronald Dworkin maintains that constitutional jurisdiction does not weaken the concept of democracy. On the contrary, it is the judges who are best prepared to resolve problems of political morality. On the other hand, with very well elaborated arguments, Jeremy Waldron defends the dignity of the legislation, arguing that, where there is reasonable moral disagreement, the constitutional jurisdiction should step aside, under penalty of imposing an arbitrary solution due to lack of democratic legitimacy. Overcoming this dilemma is demonstrated in the topic that examines the theory of institutional dialogue.