Abstract

The contrast between Matteucci and Bobbio anticipates a debate that will be developed later, presenting a precursor character. It concerns the compatibility between positivism and constitutionalism; or, rather, the capacity of positivism to explain the Law of constitutionalism. On the other hand, the discussion between the two philosophers can be considered a good example of the tension between the general and the particular that affects the philosophy of Law. The question that arises is to what extent this circumstance can reduce the force of Matteucci’s critique, since philosophical reflection on Law must be aware that legal experience is not reduced to the context of constitutionalism. Based on these premises, three questions are addressed: Matteucci’s “iusnaturalismµ; the role of the judge and the challenge of balance; and the concept of the Constitution.