Methods of interpretation in the contemporary constitutional law

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to outline the elements of argumentation and legal hermeneutics as appropriate methods to justify judicial decisions that have gained special relevance in the context of the constitutionalization of law in Colombia. It is argued that these methods based on principles and values, and contributions of contemporary constitutional law of fundamental rights is a step in the establishment of a new conception of legal validity. Compared these two approaches-legal argumentation and hermeneutics, we conclude that even with their differences, both rescue the evaluative perspective in legal reasoning and constitutional supremacy in the judicial task. It highlights the hermeneutic perspective in that it allows a direct link elements of the social and historical values and constitutional principles in connection with fundamental rights.