Opposable reasons – solving conflicts of fundamental rights and norms

Abstract

This dissertation argues that the deadlock that constitutional courts find themselves in when justifying decisions on cases that involve conflicting constitutional norms can be best resolved by appealing to a particular type of reasons, namely opposable reasons. These opposable reasons form the basis for building a minimal account of law that can meaningfully claim a universal reach while being fully compatible with libertarian or anarchist ideals. This dissertation explores in depth concepts such as KANT’s obligationes non colliduntur principle, RAZ’s second-order reasons, RAWL’s reflective equilibrium, and SCANLON’s reasons for action so as to make the case in favour of opposable reasons.