Some examples of this type of document may be wills, which are legally valid to testify to a person`s last wishes. Another example of documents with legal value are property titles, company registrations, the civil registry of a person, and even a doctoral thesis can count on the status of a document with legal value, since it is a material testimony of the research carried out by a professional in favor of his doctorate. In the information sciences, such as archivology and library science, the document is considered a central element of any archive, which not only meets different categories and types, but can also have different values – whether primary or secondary – among which those of scientific value stand out. Cultural, historical, administrative, fiscal, accounting, legal or legal. On the other hand, private documents must also have the requirements to be written and prepared by a person legally authorized to create them, who should not necessarily be a public official and may be a lawyer. Likewise, private documents must have objects that fall within their competence and also correspond to the different forms and formats required by law. However, in addition, any private document wishing to acquire its legal value must contain the type of law applicable according to the object, the name and signature of the natural or legal person granting it, the name and signature of the subscriber, as well as the date and place of their creation, the data, which give it its true legal value. Note: The declared value is sometimes based on the actual amount received when the shares are issued, but may also©be lower. It is disproportionate to the market value of the shares.
If we say that the basis of validity is mixed, it means that it is absolutely necessary that the subjects and the courts obey it. We will mainly deal with the validity of the point of view of the dominant subjects, which has to do with the fact that they recognize them as such. In the same way, the bodies that should apply it would be identified with the limits and parameters that they would have as an indispensable margin, in this way the dominant subjects would have a symmetry of information and it would be easier for them to adhere to it from this point of view, but now all this is conditioned by the reasons, which lead a person to commit an act «X». It wouldn`t necessarily have to do with the intent of disobedience just because of that. This happens because some rules can be repealed, deleted or replaced by another if necessary due to non-use of the Community. However, from the point of view of the courts, it refers in simple terms that it is responsible for the application by the subjects in power of the coercive consequences of disobedience to the rule, since they are entrusted with this task by the constitutional mandate so that they can render their decisions and judgments, affirming the correspondent when the conditioning event occurs for the application of the norm. And what is necessary for this fact to be authentic is that there is a specific fact, so that they can dictate in this way to those who are questioned about their function what corresponds as due. In this way, it can be said that the effectiveness and validity of a rule of law depend both on the issues surrounding its recognition and on the courts regarding the coercive application of that rule. In this sense, a document with legal value is defined by the various disciplines inherent in document management, as a text medium that can be used as material testimony before the law and also fulfills the function of guardian of the various duties and rights of persons and institutions related to its content. Similarly, document management experts have pointed out that the legal value of a document is an asset subject to periods of validity, so that there may be documents with current legal value as well as documents with non-current legal value, which is also closely related to its usefulness before the various legal bodies. The concept of validity of a legal norm is a question discussed by authors such as Hans Kelsen, H.L.A. Hart or Riccardo Guastini.
Kelsen`s pure theory proposes that the validity of a norm means that it has a specific existence, that is, the subjective meaning of an action becomes an objective meaning of the law. Hart, on the other hand, has a descriptive meaning of validity. For this author, validity means «affiliation» to the legal system. Finally, Guastini distinguishes between formal validity and material validity. The first relates to the fact that an N1 standard is valid because it was manufactured to a higher N2 standard; and the material validity is that an N1 standard is valid, while an N3 standard states that the N2 standard is materially superior, and therefore its content cannot be refuted by N1. However, for a particular document to acquire legal value, it must not only answer a question that it deserves, that is to say, that its object or content are not the only factors that determine the acquisition of that value, but those documents must also comply with the formal and substantive requirements that each court offers. so that the different documents can be taken into account according to their legal value. In this sense, with regard to the formal and substantive requirements that each document must have in order to obtain legal value, the various legal provisions generally distinguish – according to their function – between public documents, public documents and private documents, attributing to each a specific object and form, which are described below: For a norm to be valid, as in a legal system, they do not have to correspond to a natural right or a certain moral order, but this does not mean that they have a claim to moral rectitude, that is, if there is an order with false norms from a moral point of view, it does not detract from its validity. However, if they are extremely unfair, for example by violating fundamental rights or their guarantees, they would lose their validity in that case. The creation of the law has its logical origin in the need for human behavior to be explicit by a higher authority, as in morality, so it has its basis in its enormous moral duty, that is, we are obliged to conduct behaviors that the public law tells us. Every law has this obligation attributable to every person who lives together. Therefore, the law has moral value, because the law must be the object of respect and obedience and is based on this fundamental norm.
The validity of positive duty as a rationally binding duty is based on a moral duty, so that every positive duty must also be a just duty, insofar as morality does not require the rejection of such a rule. If we consider the public determination to avoid a greater evil to be unjust, then it does not lose its moral validity «the lesser evil is morally preferable to the greatest evil.» If one understands that security or order must take precedence over what everyone considers due, the rationality of moral duty prevails, because order and security are a moral duty, since they constitute what is just, since justice is not a value independent of peace, order or security. but a branch between them. Now, there is only one unjust positive duty, and therefore it would lose its validity if the moral reason on which it is based deprived it of its universal validity. This means that if there is a moral reason that compels it not to obey the duty established by public order, then in this class it ceases to be the duty with universal validity, since there is another heteronomous moral duty that conflicts with the public duty and suppresses the universal validity.