About The Workshop
IVR 37- Conflicts Between Norms: Identification, Typology and Resolution
Convenors:
Luka Burazin, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb
Mario Krešić, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb
Silvia Zorzetto, Full Professor, Law Department, Università Telematica Pegaso
Marianela Delgado Nieves, Teaching Assistant, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb
Svan Relac, Teaching Assistant, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb
Contact: mdelgadonieves@pravo.hr
The theory of normative conflicts can be approached from two perspectives. Existing research has produced criteria for identification and various typologies, typically based on logical analyses of norm incompatibility. In modern legal systems, two primary approaches to resolving conflicts are recognized: traditional criteria (such as lex posterior, lex specialis, lex superior) and balancing or weighing of norms. Balancing is generally considered a residual method, applied only when traditional criteria are inapplicable, leaving a “gap in criteria.” While theoretical literature addresses meta-conflicts—cases where traditional criteria produce incompatible outcomes—these discussions usually note only that certain criteria tend to dominate. Empirical studies on how legal scholars resolve conflicts in practice, and on the limits of traditional criteria, remain scarce; in particular, little is known about the implicit heuristics or methodological assumptions that guide scholars and practitioners when criteria point in divergent directions.
This workshop aims to explore both: (1) the identification and typology of normative conflicts, and the conditions under which each type can be meaningfully distinguished; and; (2) the traditional criteria for their resolution and their relationship with balancing (including the interplay between traditional criteria and balancing, and the possibility of hierarchical or context-dependent priority rules).
Attention will also be devoted to the systematic relationships among criteria, and to the extent to which empirical insights can refine or challenge existing theoretical models. The workshop explicitly welcomes both quantitative and qualitative analyses, and in fact encourages a fruitful discussion on the usefulness and feasibility of developing robust and/or automated methods for analyzing normative conflicts.
The outcome of the workshop consists in outlining a theoretical framework for identifying and classifying normative conflicts, as well as clarifying the conditions and limits for applying traditional resolution criteria.
Keywords: normative conflicts, typology, resolution
This workshop is part of the project “Conflicts between Norms and Traditional Criteria for Their Resolution in Modern Legal Systems” Funded by the European Union – NextGenerationEU”.
