Abstract This article develops an expectation‐centred concept of legal certainty. It first reconstructs the notion of social expectation, distinguishing empirical from normative types and analysing their sources, reasonableness, and postdictive assessment. It defines legal certainty as the conformity of judicial decisions with the normative expectations shared by the majority of a relevant reference network; disappointment of those expectations generates legal uncertainty, while contexts lacking shared expectations remain indeterminate. The model isolates four analytic variables—(i) object of evaluation (single ruling or body of case law), (ii) the operative reference network, (iii) temporal standpoint ( ex ante or ex post ), and (iv) admissible content of expectations (formalistic versus informal). Combining these variables yields tailored submodels and measurable indicators. By mapping degrees of conformity rather than a binary state, the framework explains why observers anchored in different networks can reach divergent certainty judgments while remaining internally coherent.
Víctor García‐Yzaguirre (Thu,) studied this question.