This issue of i-lex contains an article by Bernd Schünemann on the Radbruch formula, which the eminent jurist concisely critiques. At the same time, the author proposes a clever legal construction capable of achieving more secure results of justice without 'anesthetizing' legal reasoning as Radbruch did: “it is not often that a philosophical-legal theory has such a decisive influence on the practical application of the law. The triumphal march of the Radbruch formula is one of the most striking examples. […]In regard to Nazi massacres, for which it was specifically developed, its consequences are on target. However, it does not represent a perfect approach and, therefore, has led to erroneous results in criminal proceedings against the regime of the SED [Socialist Unity Party of Germany] after reunification. […]To construct a concept of legal validity that does not make the most heinous offences of a terrorist regime appear legitimate or allows the new post-revolution rulers to retroactively prosecute the old regime criminally, it proves necessary to go beyond the simple factual validity of the law, in the sense of Weber's probability of the sanction or even Radbruch's incongruous formula.” I leave it to the reader's curiosity to discover the solution offered by Schünemann.

Then Conte, Dodaro, D’Urso, Gritti, Imbriano, Marcocci, Scamardella and Tafuri outline their researches.