Soliloquies On Legal Argumentation From Post-Positivist Thought: Manuel Atienza

Objective: To roughly analyze Manuel Atienza's thought through the practice of the soliloquy and the decalogue, linking legal argumentation to the process to justify legal decisions in a rational and persuasive manner, based on democratic values and social needs.   Theoretical framework: It is based on concepts and theories of post legal positivism and references of the argumentative dimension of law, conceptualizing law from an argumentative point of view, weighting, argumentation, review of the conceptions of law from the theories of normativism positivism, iusnaturalism, legal realism, legal formalism and critical theories of law.   Method: A qualitative approach was used, descriptive depth level, under the hermeneutic and analytical-synthetic method of the relevant legal theories and doctrines to synthesize the principles of legal argumentation according to Atienza. With documentary review technique.   Results and Discussion: The findings show how the doctrine established by this theory, unlike formalist approaches, proposes an argumentation oriented to social justice and conflict resolution in complex contexts. The discussion contextualizes these results in the usefulness of this perspective in the integration of norms and values.   Implications: Derives connivance with post-positivist theory as a viable route to strengthen the rule of law and social justice, as it integrates deliberation and critical judgment in legal practice, prioritizing a more humane law committed to fundamental rights.   Originality/Value: Research that becomes a leitmotiv for a sui generis contribution of the analysis of legal argumentation to improve the quality of legal reasoning.