Validation of a methodology to evaluate the argumentative quality of judicial decisions in Ecuador

Abstract

The theory of legal argumentation is gaining ground in the legal field due to its proposal as a metatheory aimed at rationalizing the application of legal principles. The objective of the research is to validate a methodology to evaluate the argumentative quality of judicial decisions in Ecuador. The research delves into the evaluation of the lines of argument on the constitutionality of a bill on domain forfeiture, using criteria of consistency and coherence, while examining whether the decision is results-based or consequentialist. It draws on theoretical methodologies rooted in legal dogmatics to understand the rule of law. All extracted data are subjected to synthetic analysis to foster the development of practical theoretical knowledge, delineate the scope of judicial discretion in decision making