Abstract

The challenges that normative redundancies and normative conflicts pose to legal theory have been traditionally addressed by either altering the rules that trigger them, or by including preference rules that deactivate them. As an alternative to these routes, this paper argues that the problems with both redundancies and conflicts only arise as a consequence of a mistaken understanding of legal reasoning that ignores the material relations between the rules at issue. By resorting to inferential semantics, this material dimension is taken into account and the challenges met without having to introduce new rules nor altering the original ones.