Search

The processes of judicial decision-making have been affected by different types of legal theory. In previous work I explore in depth the main theories that have influenced the traditions and arguments of judges in Latin America, and particularly in Colombia. At times, the dominant judicial style has been characterized as "formalistic". Latin American formalism, however, is a multi-faceted and complex phenomenon. One of the main traits of this formalistic type of adjudication tends to isolate judicial reasoning from social "needs", "interests", and "consequences". These vague concepts, when used in judicial rhetoric, frequently work as symptoms of the infiltration of "sociological" modes of jurisprudence that criticize and seek to transcend formalistic jurisprudence. In this paper I want to go through two intense historical moments (1935-1940 and 1992-2002)) in which tools of "sociological jurisprudence" have had a significant impact on judicial decision-making in Colombia. The challenge to traditional formalistic jurisprudence created in both moments a chiasm both in the profession and in public opinion at large. My purpose is to analyze the uses of new tools of "anti-formalistic" legal reasoning and the way, if any, in which they merged into the main currents of local legal consciousness. The types of sociological jurisprudence that were displayed differed starkly at each of the relevant periods and appealed to different actors and interests. The history of "sociological jurisprudence" in Latin America also reveals important differences from the intellectual "histories" of jurisprudence that nowadays usually get told from the perspective of U.S. intellectual developments. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]