Chairs:

• Yezid Carrillo de la Rosa ycarrillod@unicartagena.edu.co
• Riccardo Perona rperona@unicartagena.edu.co
• Melisa Caro Benítez mcarob1@unicartagena.edu.co
• Daniel Florez-Muñoz dflorezm@unicartagena.edu.co

Reasonableness is one of the most frequently invoked legal standards and, at the same time, one of the most conceptually elusive. Although it is widely used across different legal systems and branches of law, its role in the constitutional sphere has been particularly significant. Constitutional and supreme courts often rely on reasonableness to assess the validity of laws, justify interpretive choices, and balance conflicting rights. Despite this centrality, the notion resists precise definition and raises both theoretical and practical debates.

This workshop will explore the constitutional dimension of legal reasonableness through three complementary perspectives:

Theoretical perspective: the foundations of reasonableness as a constitutional standard; the relationship between reason, reasonableness, and legitimacy; and whether reasonableness can rest on universal principles or is inevitably conditioned by contextual values.

Practical perspective: judicial uses of reasonableness, including similarities and divergences between common law and civil law traditions; its role in constitutional adjudication at the national, supranational, and international levels; and its interaction with other standards such as equality and proportionality.

Doctrinal and critical perspective: ongoing debates about the nature of constitutional interpretation and the risks of judicial indeterminacy and subjectivism; the tensions between reasonableness and legal certainty; and the potential of reasonableness as a bridge between law and morality.

The workshop seeks to foster dialogue among scholars from different jurisdictions and traditions, with the aim of clarifying the constitutional role of reasonableness while recognizing its multiple functions and contested foundations. Contributions of a comparative, doctrinal, philosophical, or critical nature are welcome, as well as case studies illustrating the practical relevance of reasonableness in constitutional adjudication.