Natural Law, Legal Positivism, and Judicial Decision-Making: A Legal-Philosophical Analysis of the Baldivieso Ruling of the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice

Abstract

This paper analyzes, from a legal-philosophical perspective, the main schools of legal philosophy –natural law and legal positivism, in their various forms– and their influence on judicial practice. Through the study of the distinction between rules and principles, the methods of subsumption and balancing, and the criteria of legal understanding and interpretation, the "Baldivieso" ruling of the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice (CSJN) is examined. The analysis reveals that the majority opinion follows an Alexyan balancing logic with a natural law bias, while Justice Argibay's concurrence exhibits a positivist analytical methodology grounded in rational subsumption.