| Unlike traditional societies, it is in the contemporary modern societies that we find a obvious plurality of values. This axiological pluralism is related to the multiples and various cultures and subcultures which constitute them and sustain them. Therefore, it makes difficult, if not impossible any consensus omnium (universal consensus) on the rules, principles and values. To a plurality of cultures, groups and individuals also corresponds the requests legitimated by the democratic legal system. These requests could not be prior discriminated, without the justification of this exclusion, distinction or preference not being reconcilable with the institutional requirements. Because the law does not make exception of anybody and applies to all, irrespective of any discrimination. (Extremely) of this equal freedom and dignity, the modern man wants to be a creator of the laws. He provides them in the present without reference to any tradition which would make them have an undoubtedly authority. It is thus in this moving context where the individual was raised in absolute value and where nothing really stable holds, apart from him, which it was advisable to reconsider the criteria and conditions of the possibility of legal interpretation while taking to witness the concept of the indeterminacy such as it was thought by feminist jurisprudence and Critical Legal Studies.;Our thesis: Law and practical objectivity: Analysis of the feminist jurisprudence and of Critical Legal Studies, related to four chapters, subdivided in two great parts. These chapters are mainly distinguished between them, not by an excessive preoccupation with an exhaustiveness, but well by a major concern of demonstration and argumentation. In particular, the persistent attention that we wanted to carry to the methodological concept of the indeterminacy and the presentation of the contemporary criticisms of the right is legal.;The legal constructivism which is considered here, relies on the institution and is integrated around thesis according to which our institutional system is carrying the idea of the fair-minded; more the transcendent one to justify the laws and their interpretation, but the immanence of the democratic institutions. By legal methodology, we wanted to subject to a critical examination and a thorough analysis the conditions of possibility of the codetermination (indeterminacy-interpretation) and to show in what the law is built and is rebuilt every time defining and redefining the configurations of justice; can such legal mobility end up with the question of just? (Abstract shortened by UMI.). |
