Three answers iusfilosóficos after the jewish holocaust

Abstract

The present article of reflection aims to describe three responses of the philosophical law to the events of the Second World War, especially those related to the Dantesque scene of permanent suffering and pain of human dignity of a people like the Jewish , in something that does not even have a name, but they call it Holocaust or strictly Shoah. The methodology for this purpose is strictly a qualitative approach and out of respect for the history memory, and in coherence with it, its method, type of study and others is symmetrical. Within the preliminary results it was found that said iusophospheric response it comes from the social critical paradigm, the paradigm of consensus and the paradigmatic tension of the Hart-Dworkin debate. It concludes in the first the contribution of communication and human understanding from self-criticism; in the second, the need for a rational consensus between equal free citizens and the latter that the law does not rest only on rules, but also on principles and on the judge's responsibility to assume rights in earnest and recognize the needs of judicial discretion.