The essay investigates the international dimension of public order, which is put on the ropes by some jurisprudential and doctrinal proposals, profiling the different binding force of “international” public order compared to that of “internal” public order. The approach in question reflects, on a more general level, the tendency to enhance the role of judges’ interpretation, moving from the supposed inability of the legal categories to reflect the social context of reference. This line of thinking is not shared by the Author, who reads the legislative reference to public order as a «general rule»: that is, as a synthetic expression through which the various regulatory indexes that express the foundations of society are recalled. The possibility of heteronomous integration of the judgment of compatibility of private acts or foreign measures with respect to public order is thus rejected and the tendency of judges to identify in the jurisdiction the closing body of the system is criticized. Conversely, it is dogmatic reflection that allows the renewal of the legal system, respecting the original legal form of the community.
Il saggio indaga la dimensione internazionale dell’ordine pubblico, la quale risulta messa alle corde da alcune proposte giurisprudenziali e dottrinarie, profilanti la differente forza cogente dell’ordine pubblico «internazionale» rispetto a quella dell’ordine pubblico «interno». L’impostazione in parola riflette, a livello più generale, la tendenza a valorizzare il ruolo dell’interpretazione dei giudici, muovendo dalla supposta incapacità delle categorie giuridiche di riflettere il contesto sociale di riferimento. Questa linea di pensiero non è condivisa dall’a., il quale legge il riferimento legislativo all’ordine pubblico come una norma generale: ossia come un’espressione sintetica attraverso la quale vengono richiamati i vari indici normativi che esprimono le basi costitutive della società. Viene così rifiutata la possibilità d’integrazione eteronoma del giudizio di compatibilità degli atti dei privati o dei provvedimenti stranieri rispetto all’ordine pubblico e viene criticata la tendenza dei giudici a individuare nella giurisdizione l’organo di chiusura del sistema. Viceversa, è la riflessione dogmatica che permette il rinnovamento dell’ordinamento, rispettando la forma giuridica originaria della comunità.
Ordine pubblico, diritto privato e vocazione internazionale
Montanari A
2022-01-01
Abstract
The essay investigates the international dimension of public order, which is put on the ropes by some jurisprudential and doctrinal proposals, profiling the different binding force of “international” public order compared to that of “internal” public order. The approach in question reflects, on a more general level, the tendency to enhance the role of judges’ interpretation, moving from the supposed inability of the legal categories to reflect the social context of reference. This line of thinking is not shared by the Author, who reads the legislative reference to public order as a «general rule»: that is, as a synthetic expression through which the various regulatory indexes that express the foundations of society are recalled. The possibility of heteronomous integration of the judgment of compatibility of private acts or foreign measures with respect to public order is thus rejected and the tendency of judges to identify in the jurisdiction the closing body of the system is criticized. Conversely, it is dogmatic reflection that allows the renewal of the legal system, respecting the original legal form of the community.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.