Courts purport to abandon ordinary meaning only when words in a statute accommodate more than one meaning; to look to surrounding words, legislative history, and then public policy considerations, only if those previous efforts fail. The canon of statutory construction, “a word is known by its associates,” generally means nearest associates, or near as possible. An analogous language philosophy principle counsels increasing search radius only as needed. Dimensional extension advances the sequence to broader domains of information. Such incrementalist restrictions should (...) require consistent justification of each broadening step by the inadequacy of preceding steps. But courts don’t do this, and shouldn’t. This essay references the legal debate between “textualists” and non-textualists and its philosophical parallel between minimalists and pragmatists. It illustrates court departures from the incrementalist model, and concludes that when judges choose broad evidentiary contexts in seeking statutory meaning, they need no more justification than when they choose narrower ones. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: The Positivist Era, 1890s to 1930s: Eclecticism and Specific Intent The Legal Process Era, 1938–69: Purposive Interpretation Post–Legal Process Theories: 1969–Present References.

In this essay, I explore the question of who should determine what an ambiguous tax statute means, the courts or the Department of Treasury. The answer to that question is based on two administrative law doctrines: Chevron and Brand X. Here, I explain why Chevron and Brand X violate the Administrative Procedure Act and are unworkable. Then, using a provision in the tax code, I propose that we return to a standard that is both consistent with the APA and easier (...) to implement: Skidmore. (shrink)

At least since plato and Aristotle, thinkers have pondered the relationship between philosophical arguments and the "sophistical" arguments offered by the Sophists -- who were the first professional lawyers. Judges wield substantial political power, and the justifications they offer for their decisions are a vital means by which citizens can assess the legitimacy of how that power is exercised. However, to evaluate judicial justifications requires close attention to the method of reasoning behind decisions. This new collection illuminates and explains the (...) political and moral importance in justifying the exercise of judicial power. (shrink)

The transitory and ever-evolving process of law making plays a role of primal importance in the regulation of human conduct of society. It goes without saying that in this entire process, judges have a participation. The power entrusted by law and the nature of judicial process, make judges the prime mover of the development of law. It matters how judges decide cases. It matters most to people unlucky or litigious or wicked or saintly enough to find themselves in court... The (...) effect emanating from the decision of a case affects the life of a person in many ways that at times has far reaching impact...When the law in question happens to be criminal law, it requires a cautious consideration to see how the interpretive tools used by judges affect the life of a litigant in ways both seen and unseen... Several areas concerning adjudication and judicial interpretation have been the subject matter of study. This paper includes a discussion on the principle of non- retrospectivity in light of judicial adjudication in criminal matters. (shrink)

A current focus of legal debate is the proper role of the courts in the interpretation of statutes and the Constitution. Are judges to look solely to the naked language of an enactment, then logically deduce its application in simple syllogistic fashion, as legal formalists had purported to do? Or may the inquiry into meaning be informed by perhaps unbridled and unaccountable judicial notions of public policy, using legal realism to best promote the general welfare? Judge Posner considers the (...) concepts of formalism and realism to be meaningful and useful in common law reasoning but in interpretation to be useless and, worse, forbidden. He analogizes unclear "orders" from a legislature to garbled battlefield communications, and argues that the duty of the recipient of those orders (the judge) is to advance as best he can the enterprise set on foot by the superiors. Case studies elaborate this thesis. Judicial decisions interpreting fixed texts, Judge Posner concludes, can be neither logically correct or incorrect, philosophically sound or unsound, until the ultimate jurist, time, has adjudged their results. (shrink)

Apres avoir introduit les concepts de base de Fūdo, je propose une interpretation du texte problematisee autour du statut de la vegetation. Il s’agira de montrer pourquoi et comment la place que tient la vegetation joue un role mediateur fondamental en tant que principe de premiere importance, y compris et surtout ici pour la vie humaine decrite par Watsuji. Ce faisant, l’objectif est double. D’une part, montrer, a la suite d’Augustin Berque, la coherence de la visee mesologique initiale de l’auteur (...) en donnant un fondement theorique a ses exemples vegetaux. D’autre part, se recentrer sur le role mesologique de la vegetation permet de relativiser la place du climat et donc du determinisme environnemental souvent surevalues dans beaucoup de traductions et commentaires de Fūdo. (shrink)

Dans chaque culture et chaque époque parmi les fonctions des couvre-chefs apparaît celle d’élément symbolique et de signalétique. Cette contribution se veut une réflexion sur le couvre-chef féminin comme élément chargé de signifier l’identité : de genre, de religion, mais aussi sociale et donc comme support sémantique de l’appartenance. Ce qui sera fait en examinant en particulier les prescriptions relatives aux couvre-chefs dans les lois édictées dans deux régions de l’Italie centrale à la fin du Moyen Âge et au début (...) de l’époque moderne. Les interprétations de l’obligation imposées aux femmes par un passage de saint Paul mais aussi les lois civiques qui les obligent à garder toujours la tête couverte à l’Église et dans les rues de la cité procurent diverses informations. Elles montrent la volonté des législateurs de discipliner la société urbaine et d’obtenir des avantages de la désobéissance à ces règles, mais aussi la résistance opposée par une partie des femmes et, plus généralement, la force du phénomène de la mode. (shrink)

La détermination du statut de la dialectique aristotélicienne aura certes été l'une des principales tâches auxquelles se seront consacrés les chercheurs de cette seconde moitié du siècle. Le nombre d'études qui traitent de cette question est en effet considérable. Or en dépit de tous ces travaux, l'interprétation de certains passages, où Aristote traite expressément du statut de la dialectique, demeure controversée. C'est entre autres le cas d'un court passage du chapitre 11 desRéfutations sophistiques(=RS), chapitre à propos duquel É. Weil a (...) déjà écrit, dans un article célèbre, qu'il «est décisif pour l'interprétation de la dialectique». Nous nous efforcerons donc, dans un premier temps, d'interpréter ce passage (11, 172a9–15) à la lumière du contexte précis où il s'inscrit; puis, dans un second temps, nous présenterons et discuterons les interprétations que certains des plus grands aristotélisants contemporains (G. E. L. Owen, J. Owens et P. Aubenque) ont données de ce passage. (shrink)

The question, What category does the differentia belong to? is a difficult problem in Aristotelian metaphysics. For example, is the differentia of a substance itself a substance, or e.g. a quality? The range of previous interpretations of Aristotle on this point are comprehensively surveyed. Based primarily on evidence in the Categories, this paper argues for an answer to this question.

The aim of this paper is to study some aspects of the Medieval Latin reception of Aristotle’s theory of pleasure. First, I introduce Aristotle’s position, with special attention to the problem of the ontological status of pleasure and the relationship between pleasure and the different genera of causes, as well as the somehow ambiguous exegesis of Michael of Ephesus. Second, I take into account the interpretation given by Albert the Great in his first commentary on the Ethics. Finally, I present (...) some theological issues raised by Albert’s interpretation, in the discussions about beatific vision. The authors taken in account are James of Viterbo, Radulphus Brito, Peter Auriol and William of Ockham. (shrink)

The author begins by sketching the characteristics or elements of every tradition. Some reasons are then suggested for the propensity of so many authors to contrast statutes with other, allegedly more traditional kinds of law. However, it is argued that statutes are deeply embedded, along with customary and judge‐made law, in the highly traditional practices of law and that this matters much more than is commonly suspected. The thesis being defended here is not merely that law includes traditions (...) along with rules, principles, maxims, and so on, but rather that legal systems should be understood as traditions, albeit highly complex ones. Not only are ancient legal systems (the Talmudic, for example) held to be traditional; modem legal positive orders are viewed as being traditional too. Finally, the concept of “communities of interpretation” is applied to the contemporary posited statutes which are believed by many to be a distinguishing feature of modem legal systems. (shrink)

This essay presents a new theory of statutory application that is superior to two competitors. One of the competitors claims that statutory directives apply to act-tokens fitting the legislature's intention. The other holds that statutes apply to act-tokens that are of the genuine kinds named by the classifying words. These theories solve certain problems badly or not at all, respectively: (1) accounting for the capacity of statutes for epistemic guidance; and (2) avoiding literalism. Both do a limited job (...) of accounting for the rationality of statutory promulgation. The theory developed here, social salience theory, does better on all counts. According to social salience theory, the default position is that statutes apply to act-tokens that are socially salient, given the linguistic and social contexts. The departure from that position is also social, produced by conventions to defer to experts on the statute's applications to particular cases. (shrink)

How should judges decide which linguistic canons to apply in interpreting statutes? One important answer looks to the inside of the legislative process: Follow the rules that lawmakers contemplate. A different answer, based on the “ordinary meaning” doctrine, looks to the outside: Follow the rules that would guide an ordinary person’s understanding of the legal text. Empirical scholars have studied statutory interpretation from the inside—revealing what rules drafters follow—but never from the outside. We offer a novel framework for (...) empirically testing interpretive canons “from the outside,” recruiting 4,500 people from the United States, as well as a sample of U.S. law students, to evaluate hypothetical scenarios that correspond to each canon’s triggering conditions. -/- The empirical findings provide crucial evidence about which traditional canons “ordinary meaning” actually supports, and they carry several further implications. First, interpretive canons are not a closed set. We discovered new canons that are not yet reflected as legal canons, including one we term the “non-binary gender canon” and another the “quantifier domain restriction canon.” Second, the results support a new understanding of the ordinary meaning doctrine itself, as one focused on the ordinary interpretation of rules, as opposed to the traditional focus on “ordinary language” generally. Third, many of the canons reflect that ordinary people interpret rules with an intuitive anti-literalism. This anti-literalism finding challenges textualist assumptions about ordinary meaning, as well as offering a theme for researching other currently unrecognized canons. Most broadly, we hope the Essay initiates a new research program in empirical legal interpretation. If ordinary meaning is relevant to legal interpretation, interpreters should look to evidence of how ordinary people actually understand legal rules. We see our experiments as a first step in that new direction. (shrink)

Cet article s’efforce de présenter une conception du statut des diagrammes de Feynman appropriée à l’usage courant qui en est fait en théorie quantique des champs. Son objectif est de montrer que l’usage de ces dia­grammes n’est pas susceptible de remettre en cause l’interprétation orthodoxe anti-réaliste de la mécanique quantique. Dans un premier temps est indiqué pourquoi les diagrammes de Feynman ne peuvent être considérés comme des représentations figuratives d’événements physiques. Dans un second temps, l’auteur explique pourquoi il semble préférable (...) de concevoir ces diagrammes comme une notation graphique de termes algébriques. Le propos fournit l’oc­casion de réfléchir sur la capacité de la cognition humaine à intégrer des com­binaisons hybrides de signes et d’images. (shrink)

Cet article s’efforce de présenter une conception du statut des diagrammes de Feynman appropriée à l’usage courant qui en est fait en théorie quantique des champs. Son objectif est de montrer que l’usage de ces dia­grammes n’est pas susceptible de remettre en cause l’interprétation orthodoxe anti-réaliste de la mécanique quantique. Dans un premier temps est indiqué pourquoi les diagrammes de Feynman ne peuvent être considérés comme des représentations figuratives d’événements physiques. Dans un second temps, l’auteur explique pourquoi il semble préférable (...) de concevoir ces diagrammes comme une notation graphique de termes algébriques. Le propos fournit l’oc­casion de réfléchir sur la capacité de la cognition humaine à intégrer des com­binaisons hybrides de signes et d’images. (shrink)

Interest in interpretation has emerged in recent years as one of the main intellectual paradigms of legal scholarship. This collection of new essays in law and interpretation provides the reader with an overview of this important topic, written by some of the most distinguished scholars in the field. The book begins with interpretation as a general method of legal theorizing, and thus provides critical assessment of the recent "interpretative turn" in jurisprudence. Further chapters include essays on the nature of interpretation, (...) its objectivity, the possible determinacy of legal standards, and their nature. Concluding with a series of articles on the role of legislative intent in the interpretation of statutes, this work offers new and refreshing insights into this old controversy. (shrink)

Aristote mentionne à plusieurs reprises au cours de sa Métaphysique une doctrine platonicienne des grandeurs, qui s’inscrit dans la continuité directe de la célèbre instauration des nombres idéaux. Les interprétations les plus couramment retenues, celles de Léon Robin et de W. D. Ross, y voient l’avènement parallèle de « grandeurs idéales », lesquelles seraient à la géométrie ce que les nombres idéaux sont à l’arithmétique. Or Platon, loin de vouloir idéaliser le domaine des grandeurs au même titre que celui des (...) nombres, soutient régulièrement la primauté essentielle de l’arithmétique par rapport à la géométrie, thèse dont l’importance se trouve confirmée par l’analyse des polémiques au sein de l’Académie qu’Aristote rapporte et auxquelles il lui arrive de prendre part. On se propose donc d’esquisser les grandes lignes d’une interprétation du statut des grandeurs en tant qu’entités « après les nombres » au sein de l’ontologie du dernier platonisme, en se fondant sur les renouvellements que la considération de l’histoire des mathématiques a pu apporter à la compréhension des dialogues de Platon. (shrink)

This article probes the usefulness of selected theories from Cognitive Linguistics in the context of statutory interpretation. The presumption of legal language is a well-established rule of statutory construction in Polish legal practice that comes from the internationally recognised theory by Jerzy Wróblewski. It rests on a controversial assumption that there are different levels of generality in legal language (i.e. the language of statutes) and a single term may be given different meanings depending on the level of generality that (...) is referred to. The authors use the notion of basic level categorisation from the cognitive theory of prototypes to explain this mechanism. Legal concepts, not unlike ordinary concepts, form hierarchical taxonomies. A single term may denote concepts that are situated at different levels in different conceptual taxonomies. In the absence of special circumstances, a legal term should be given the meaning that resides at a higher level of categorisation in the respective legal taxonomy. This way, the presumption of legal language is found to be justified on both linguistic and psychological grounds. (shrink)

Principle of equality of arms is part of fair trial concept, which encompasses several guarantees linked to the defence opportunities during the criminal procedure. The accused person is entitled to a fair trial. Balance of rights between the parties is bedrock for procedural fairness and the judge has to perform his competence in providing all necessary preconditions as for the trial to be fair. There are differences between interpretation and implementation of equality of arms in the jurisprudence of European court (...) on human rights and international criminal courts. Decisions of ECtHR are much more similar with domestic understanding of equality of arms as reasonable opportunity of the defence to present the case without disadvantages vis-à-vis the prosecutor, due to inherent inequity between the parties. When analyzing proceeding before the ad hoc Tribunals, there is “more liberal interpretation” of this principle, which allowed the Prosecutor to invoke equality of arms, as well. ICTY Trial Chamber in Aleksovski case concluded that application of the concept of a fair trial in favor of both parties is understandable because the Prosecution acts on behalf of and in the interests of the international community, including the interests of the victims of the offence charged and also has held that it is difficult to see how a trial could ever be considered to be fair where the accused is favored at the expense of the Prosecution. This interpretation has been justified with dependence of the international Tribunals on state cooperation and due to the fact that international criminal courts have no autonomous enforcement agencies at their disposal. Fortunately, ICC Statute considered equality of arms as solely afforded to the defence, or to the Prosecutor on the behalf of accused. (shrink)

A familiar jurisprudential view is that statutes have the content the legislature intended. Scott Soames has challenged this view in one form while giving credence to it in another. The burden of his recent publications on the subject is that while legislative intent in the form of legislative purpose does not determine statutory content, some legislative intentions do. I maintain that Soames inflates the role of legislative intentions and ignores a source of pragmatic information that does the bulk of (...) the work of determining the linguistic content of statutes. (shrink)

Pascal founds his interpretation of the Augustinian doctrine of the corruption of human nature on a philosophy of faith inherited from Montaigne: « we are Christians in just the same way as we are Périgordians or Germans » (Essais, II, 12) : this conception of « human faith » is analysed, in turn, by means of concepts drawn from Descartes (passion) and Gassendi (imagination). He thus leads us to a very modern conception of « human faith » – without grace (...) – as being the product of education and habit, a « sentiment » like so many others. (shrink)

Alors que l'enseignement de la theologie s'organise dans l'universite naissante, les premiers maitres de cette discipline s'interrogent sur son statut noetique.Il ne s'agit pas seulement d'en faire une science comparable aux autres sciences aristoteliciennes, mais de s'interroger sur les capacites de l'intelligence humaine a connaitre Dieu a l'aide de la raison naturelle, de la Revelation, voire d'une lumiere plus specifique. Les premiers maitres ont des preoccupations communes, speculatives et pedagogiques concernant leur discipline naissante et il est interessant de voir naitre (...) alors les grandes tendances interpretatives de leur anthropologie generalement implicite. Mais la question demeure de penser ensemble la possibilite d'une connaissance de Dieu imparfaite ici-bas et sa vision beatifique dans l'au-dela. (shrink)

La conscience democratique contemporaine est heritiere de deux traditions de pensee antagonistes qui sont, d'un cote, l'universalisme des Lumieres symbolise par la Declaration universelle des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, et de l'autre le relativisme historique legue par l'Ecole historique du droit et les courants de pensee historicistes. Il tient en deux positions de principe: l'affirmation peremptoire, d'une part, de l'universalite des ideaux de la democratie et des droits de l'homme; la legitimation, d'autre part, des particularismes identitaires et socio-culturels (...) comme source constitutives de valeurs. D'ou precisement l'antagonisme entre vision universaliste et vision relativiste sur le statut axiologique de l'ideal democratique. ;C'est a cette question, redefinie a l'interieur du paradigme de la philosophie morale de Kant, que nous avons tente d'apporter une solution theorique qui fait droit aussi bien a la pretention universaliste de la norme democratique qu'a la "verite" de la conscience historique. ;L'ideal democratique ou l'Idee republicaine, s'il peut etre considere comme l'analogue politique de l'imperatif categorique, c'est d'abord parce qu'il peut etre pense, au titre de principe de l'ordre politique juste absolument, comme forme a priori de la raison, bien qu'il soit apparu dans une periode historique determinee et dans une ere culturelle particuliere, c'est-a-dire en Europe au XVIII$\rm\sp{e}$ siecle s'agissant specifiquement de l'ideal moderne de la democratie. ;Cette interpretation kantienne du statut de l'ideal democratique nous amene a prendre partie pour un universalisme formel, qui s'articule autour du lien etroit et necessaire devant prevaloir entre l'universel et le particulier. C'est ce lien que nie, en meme temps qu'elle le rompt, la rivalite traditionnelle entre l'universalisme dogmatique et le relativisme sans reserve. Aussi bien, contre le premier, l'universalisme formel inscrit l'universel dans la forme a priori de la raison comme en son lieu axiologique propre, jamais dans un contenu reel ou historique. Au second, il oppose l'horizon du formalisme kantien comme celui du discours universaliste, l'horizon qui rend possible et legitime la reference a l'universel democratique. ;C'est a cette condition qu'il nous parai t possible de justifier a la fois l'idee d'un imperatif categorique democratique et l'historicite essentielle des "experiences de l'universel" nourries par les singularismes socio-culturels et historiques. Ainsi, sommes-nous parvenu a esquisser les grandes lignes d'une interpretation kantienne du statut de l'ideal democratique, une interpretation universaliste-formaliste qui tient tete autant au dogmatisme moral qu'au relativisme sans bornes. (shrink)

A common working assumption of theories of statutory interpretation is that the object of interpretation is uncontroversial. It is assumed that dispute only centers on the epistemics of interpretation. The assumption is unsound. Theories of statutory interpretation are importantly different from other sorts of theories. The subject matter of other sorts of theories can be identified uncontroversially. In the case of statutory interpretation, the object of interpretation is controversial. What counts as the object of interpretation therefore needs specification. Without the (...) required specification, criteria of evidence and warrant justifying an interpretation are not well-defined.An adequate theory of statutory interpreation must contain both epistemic and ontological components. It must provide criteria for treating information as evidence relevant to, and standards for, interpreting a statute. Providing such criteria in turn requires also giving an account of the object of interpretation — what a statute consists in. Practical reason theories fail to provide acceptable criteria and standards for interpreting a statute. These accounts therefore fail to supply an adequate epistemic components for a theory of statutory interpretation. As to the ontological component, things are less clear. I have argued in sections II and III that this component is partly a matter of substantive political theory. Although practical reason theorists fail to offer a substantive political theory for defining the proper object of interpretation, their accounts are in principle ontologically unobjectionable. At most, practical reason accounts are incomplete. Of course, practical reason accounts might still be defective for other reasons. They may invoke a defective substantive political theory. Or the constraints imposed on properties of a statute or relations between them may not in fact affectuate the goals set by the theory. Such failings would be normative, not metaphysical. Since practical reason accounts are epistemically inadequate and ontologically incomplete, legal theorists should find the accounts less attractive than they do, even putting aside the normative soundness of the accounts. (shrink)

In his recent book Interpretation and Legal Theory , Andrei Marmor makes a number of claims about meaning and interpretation, both in general and in law, which I will argue are mistaken. Actually, there is some confusion in his book between what I take to be his “official” view of the nature of meaning and interpretation, and a very different view which keeps surfacing despite his official rejection of it. I will argue that this alternative, rejected view, when properly developed, (...) is more plausible than his official view, and that the difference between them is of considerable practical consequence for legal interpretation. What is at stake is the role of legislative intention. The alternative view denies Marmor's claim that the meaning of a statute is conceptually independent of the intention or purpose which the legislature had in enacting it. It should be said at the outset that I will focus on just three of the eight chapters in Marmor's book, which contains many virtues that are untouched by my critique. (shrink)

One may have different objectives in interpreting texts. If a judge interprets a statute in order to obtain a satisfactory solution to a case, his aim may be called “applicative”. But if a historian of science wants to reconstruct the meaning of obscure passages of Ptolemy’s “Hypotheses planetarum”, his objectives are purely historical and theoretical.The paper argues that these different aims, applicative and historical ones, require different methodologies of interpretation, and imply different criteria of success. In particular, the “principle (...) of charity” according to which an interpretation is better to the extent that we agree more with what the text as interpreted says, is fitting for applicative interpretations, but not without further qualifications for historical ones.The paper argues further that we should apply the methodology of historical interpretation to the entire body of German texts now available, if we want to interpret Martin Heidegger’s philosophical oeuvre, assess its philosophical value, and investigate its links to Nazism. These were the aims of Herman Philipse’s book “Heidegger’s Philosophy of Being. A Critical Interpretation” . Criticisms of this book by Taylor Carman and others are often off target because they presuppose applicative interpretations that aim at making Heidegger say things the interpreter believes himself, instead of striving for historical adequacy, and that are based upon a small selection of translations instead of upon the entire corpus of extant German texts. (shrink)

One may have different objectives in interpreting texts. If a judge interprets a statute in order to obtain a satisfactory solution to a case, his aim may be called “applicative”. But if a historian of science wants to reconstruct the meaning of obscure passages of Ptolemy's “Hypotheses planetarum”, his objectives are purely historical and theoretical.The paper argues that these different aims, applicative and historical ones, require different methodologies of interpretation, and imply different criteria of success. In particular, the “principle (...) of charity” according to which an interpretation is better to the extent that we agree more with what the text as interpreted says, is fitting for applicative interpretations, but not without further qualifications for historical ones.The paper argues further that we should apply the methodology of historical interpretation to the entire body of German texts now available, if we want to interpret Martin Heidegger's philosophical oeuvre, assess its philosophical value, and investigate its links to Nazism. These were the aims of Herman Philipse's book “Heidegger's Philosophy of Being. A Critical Interpretation” (Princeton University Press, 1998, 555 pp.). Criticisms of this book by Taylor Carman and others are often off target because they presuppose applicative interpretations that aim at making Heidegger say things the interpreter believes himself, instead of striving for historical adequacy, and that are based upon a small selection of translations instead of upon the entire corpus of extant German texts. (shrink)

"Language shapes and reflects how we think about the world. It engages and intrigues us. Our everyday use of language is quite effortless--we are all experts on our native tongues. Despite this, issues of language and meaning have long flummoxed the judges on whom we depend for the interpretation of our most fundamental legal texts. Should a judge feel confident in defining common words in the texts without the aid of a linguist? How is the meaning communicated by the text (...) determined? Should the communicative meaning of texts be decisive, or at least influential?... [Contributors] argue that the meaning of language is crucial to the interpretation of legal texts, such as statutes, constitutions, and contracts. Accordingly... analysis of language from linguists, philosophers, and legal scholars should influence how courts interpret legal texts."--. (shrink)

The puzzle arises because propositions of law seem to be descriptive—they are about how things are in the law, not about how they should be—and yet it has proved extremely difficult to say exactly what it is that they describe. Legal positivists believe that propositions of law are indeed wholly descriptive: they are in fact pieces of history. A proposition of law in their view, is true just in case some event of a designated law-making kind has taken place, and (...) other wise not. This seems to work reasonably well in very simple cases. If the Illinois legislature enacts the words "No will shall be valid without three witnesses, "then the proposition of law, that in Illinois will needs three witnesses, seems to be true only in virtue of that historical event.But in more difficult cases the analysis fails. Consider the proposition that a particular affirmative action scheme is constitutionally valid. If that is true, it cannot be so just in virtue of the text of the Constitution and the fact of prior court decisions, because reasonable lawyers who know exactly what the constitution says and what the courts have done may yet disagree whether it is true. What are the other possibilities? One is to suppose that controversial propositions f law, like the affirmative action statement, are not descriptive at all but are rather expressions of what the speaker wants the law to be.Another is more ambitious: controversial statements are attempts to describe some pure objective or natural law, which exits in virtue of objective moral truth rather than historical decision. Both these projects take some legal statements, at least, to be purely evaluative as distinct from descriptive: they express either what the speaker prefers—his personal politics—or what he believes is objectively required b the principles of an ideal political morality. Neither of these projects is plausible because someone who says that a particular untested affirmative action plan is constitution does mean to describe the law as it is rather than as he wants it to be or thinks that, by the best moral theory, it should be. He might, indeed, say that the regrets that the plan is constitutional and thinks that, according to the best moral theory, it ought not to be.There is a better alternative: propositions of law are not simply descriptive of legal history, in a straightforward way, nor are they simply evaluative in some way divorced from legal history. They are interpretive of legal history, which combines elements of both description and evaluation but is different from both. This suggestion will be congenial, at least at first blush, to many lawyers and legal philosophers. They are used to saying that law is a matter of interpretation; but only, perhaps because they understand interpretation in a certain way. When a statute is unclear on some point, because some crucial term is vague or because a sentence is ambiguous, lawyers say that the statute must be interpreted, and they apply what they call "techniques of statutory construction." Most of the literature assumes that interpretation of a particular document is a matter of discovering what its authors meant to say in using the words they did. But lawyers recognize that on many issues the author had no intention either way and that on others his intention cannot be discovered. Some lawyers take a more skeptical position. They say that whenever judges pretend they are discovering the intention behind some piece of legislation, this is simply a smoke screen behind which the judges impose their own view of what the statute should have been.Ronald Dworkin, professor of jurisprudence at Oxford University, is the author of Taking Rights Seriously and editor of The Philosophy of Law. (shrink)

L’objet de l’article est d’interroger le statut d’une œuvre d’art à partir du problème de l’interprétation posé initialement par Arthur Danto. Une œuvre d’art demande-t-elle nécessairement à être interprétée? L’argumentation se déploie à une double échelle. À une échelle ontologique, l’enjeu est de savoir sous quelles conditions un objet appartient à la classe des œuvres d’art. À une échelle dénotative, l’enjeu est de savoir si toute représentation artistique requiert un travail interprétatif. L’auteur défend une théorie de l’interprétation restreinte, d’inspiration pragmatiste, (...) en vertu de laquelle l’interprétation, comme activité suspensive et réflexive, n’intervient que lorsque le rapport au sens est troublé, confus, problématique. Ainsi une œuvre d’art n’est soumise à interprétation que lorsque son statut ontologique ne va pas de soi et lorsque son potentiel de dénotation contrarie notre rapport familier au sens. (shrink)

La vie des doctrines philosophico-politiques est mystérieuse, mais il semble que, sous les interprétations, les passions et les intérêts qu'elles provoquent, elles tendent à se simplifier en une scolastique académique, c'est-à-dire en un squelette décharné par la suppression de toute nuance et de toute contradiction féconde. Cette tendance apparaît particulièrement révélatrice du destin de la pensée de Karl Marx, laquelle entre toutes bouleverse les intérêts et provoque l'affrontement des passions — le marxisme s'est trop souvent laissé réduire à des mottos (...) d'action et à des slogans de propagande favorables ou non qui ont sans doute mystifié nombre d'analystes. Il en est résulté, me semble-t-il, tant chez les adversaires que chez les marxistes orthodoxes, une caricature vulgaire qui a réduit l'étonnante complexité de Marx à un économisme rigide et plat. (shrink)

In this paper we discuss a view of the Machine Learning technique called Explanation-Based Learning (EBL) or Explanation-Based Generalization (EBG) as a process for the interpretation of vague concepts in logic-based models of law.The open-textured nature of legal terms is a well-known open problem in the building of knowledge-based legal systems. EBG is a technique which creates generalizations of given examples on the basis of background domain knowledge. We relate these two topics by considering EBG''s domain knowledge as corresponding to (...) statute law rules, and EBG''s training example as corresponding to a precedent case. (shrink)

As Kent Greenwalt's second volume on aspects of legal interpretation, this book analyzes statutory and common law interpretation and compares the two. In respect to statutory interpretation, it first asks whether judges are "faithful agents" of the legislature or "independent cooperative partners." It concludes that the obvious answer is that neither simple categorization really fits-that the function of judges involves a combination of roles. The next issue addressed is whether the intent of those in authority matters for interpreting the (...) kinds of instructions contained in statutes. At the general level, the answer is "yes." This answer follows even if one thinks interpretation should concentrate on the understanding of readers, because readers themselves would treat intentions as part of the relevant context of the language of statutes. It would take some special reasons, such as constitutional structure or unreliability, to discount actual intents of legislators and use of legislative history. The book argues that none of these special reasons are convincing. On the question whether judges should focus on the language of specific provision or overall purpose, both are relevant, and purpose should become more important as time passes. In an analysis of various other features of statutory interpretation, the book claims that presidential signing statements should not have weight, that subsequent legislative actions short of new statutes should only occasionally carry importance, that "canons of interpretation," such as the rule of lenity, can provide some, limited, guidance, and that there are special reasons for courts to adhere to precedents in statutory cases, but these should not yield any absolute rule. A chapter on administrative interpretation of statutes claims that the standards agencies apply should differ to a degree from those of courts and that judicial deference to those interpretations is ordinarily warranted. The book's second part, on common law interpretation, considers the force of precedents, resisting any simple dichotomy between holding and dictum. It also defends the use of reasoning by analogy, not only in the initial stages thinking about a problem, but also in respect to some final justifications for decisions. An examination of the place of rules, principles, and policies argues that all three are relevant in common law interpretation; and shows that common law interpretation is not reducible to any formula. A final chapter compares statutory and common law interpretation, similarities and differences, how each can affect the other, and the significance of having a legal system in which they both play prominent roles. (shrink)

Il apparaît aujourd’hui impossible d’aborder la question de la lecture des textes – particulièrement des textes philosophiques – sans s’expliquer avec l’herméneutique. Encore faut-il déterminer le statut exact de celle-ci : simple méthodologie, discipline technique ou philosophie à part entière? Un examen scrupuleux des apports de l’herméneutique dite critique conduit à poser une question plus radicale encore : peut-on faire l’économie du paradigme herméneutique? En mobilisant les ressources de ce qu’on appelle aujourd’hui analyse textuelle, on est conduit à mettre en (...) avant les conditions d’une lecture analytique et critique qui rompt avec les ambiguïtés de toutes les lectures « interprétantes ». (shrink)

Les travaux des exégètes français sur la tradition du droit naturel ont été largement ignorés par les scientifiques anglo-saxons jusqu’à une date très récente. Cependant, depuis une vingtaine d’années, la tendance accrue à la juridicisation des droits de la personne a conduit les juristes anglophones à s’interroger sur leur statut, leur réalité et leur signification, questions jusqu’alors assez peu pertinentes dans la tradition de la common law. Il n’est donc pas surprenant d’avoir vu émerger outre-mer des recherches approfondies sur certains (...) concepts-clé des grands interprètes français des idées juridiques, concernant en particulier la théorie thomasienne du droit classique et la thèse selon laquelle le nominalisme occamien est à l’origine de la notion de droit subjectif. Le présent article entend montrer comment la marque française s’est imprimée dans ces nouveaux travaux, à la fois en ouvrant des perspectives qui n’auraient jamais été explorées sans elle, et en nourrissant de ce fait une critique informée et stimulante de ses thèses majeures. (shrink)

Il apparaît aujourd’hui impossible d’aborder la question de la lecture des textes – particulièrement des textes philosophiques – sans s’expliquer avec l’herméneutique. Encore faut-il déterminer le statut exact de celle-ci : simple méthodologie, discipline technique ou philosophie à part entière? Un examen scrupuleux des apports de l’herméneutique dite critique conduit à poser une question plus radicale encore : peut-on faire l’économie du paradigme herméneutique? En mobilisant les ressources de ce qu’on appelle aujourd’hui analyse textuelle, on est conduit à mettre en (...) avant les conditions d’une lecture analytique et critique qui rompt avec les ambiguïtés de toutes les lectures « interprétantes ». (shrink)

Il apparaît aujourd’hui impossible d’aborder la question de la lecture des textes – particulièrement des textes philosophiques – sans s’expliquer avec l’herméneutique. Encore faut-il déterminer le statut exact de celle-ci : simple méthodologie, discipline technique ou philosophie à part entière? Un examen scrupuleux des apports de l’herméneutique dite critique conduit à poser une question plus radicale encore : peut-on faire l’économie du paradigme herméneutique? En mobilisant les ressources de ce qu’on appelle aujourd’hui analyse textuelle, on est conduit à mettre en (...) avant les conditions d’une lecture analytique et critique qui rompt avec les ambiguïtés de toutes les lectures « interprétantes ». (shrink)

International criminal law (ICL) has traditionally overlooked sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and struggles to understand it. Prosecutions have been largely inefficient and not reflective of gender harms. The Rome Statute requires interpreting SGBV as a social construction (article 7(3)), in consistency with international human rights law (IHRL) and without discrimination (article 21(3)). There is, however, little guidance to implement these approaches. This article argues that intersectionality, an IHRL-based approach that reveals compounded discrimination, is an efficient tool to interpret (...) SGBV and, therefore, should be integrated in ICL. The article traces the origins of intersectionality in feminism and its recognition by IHRL dealing with violence against women. It establishes the applicability of intersectionality in ICL that it demonstrates with a comparative analysis of the Lubanga and Ntaganda cases. The findings show that intersectionality suits ICL’s specific needs which allows labelling and explaining some of those contributions throughout the judicial process. (shrink)

The Standard Picture holds that the contribution to the law made by an authoritative legal pronouncement is directly explained by the linguistic content of that pronouncement. This essay defends the Standard Picture from Mark Greenberg’s purported counterexamples drawn from patterns of statutory interpretation in U.S. criminal law. Once relevant features of the U.S. rule of recognition are admitted into the analysis—namely, that it arranges sources of law hierarchically, and that judicial decisions are sources of valid law—Greenberg’s counterexamples are revealed as (...) only apparent, not genuine. The legal norms that result from the patterns of interpretation he identifies can be directly explained in terms of the linguistic contents of authoritative pronouncements: judicial decisions. Furthermore, those norms can be understood as modifications of the valid norms contained in their originating statutes because judicial decisions are permitted ‘explanatory intermediaries’ of statutes by the rule of recognition. (shrink)

Este artigo apresenta uma proposta para a interpretação de Mateus 6.19-34 a partir da análise das formas. A atenção dada pelo autor às estruturas poéticas desta unidade textual é aqui destacada para que os textos sejam lidos de acordo com suas próprias exigências estilísticas. Além destes textos, que tratam especificamente do problema econômico dentro do grupo mateano, a estrutura dada pelo autor ao chamado sermão da montanha (caps. 5-7) também é abordada como evidência do esmero formal próprio de Mateus. Ao (...) tratar desta pequena amostra de textos, pretende-se esboçar algumas imagens para compreender sócio-economicamente o grupo de Mateus em seu ambiente urbano na Galiléia ao final do século I, cenário que o distinguia dos seguidores de Jesus da primeira geração que eram camponeses pauperizados que se tornavam profetas itinerantes. Por fim, a exegese nos conduz à hipótese de que por suas peculiaridades o grupo mateano é forçado a reler as tradições herdadas sob novas perspectivas, onde a pobreza é uma opção obrigatória para esse novo e judaísmo-cristão citadino. Palavras-chaves: Evangelho de Mateus; Exegese; Cristianismo primitivo; Economia; Sermão da Montanha.This article offers an interpretation of Matthew 6, 19-34 starting from the analysis of forms. The poetic structure of this textual unit is highlighted so that the texts can be read according to their own stylistic framework. Besides that text, which deals specifically with economic problems in Matthew's group, the structure of the Sermon on the Mountain (Mt 5-7) is also evidence of the formal care typical of Matthew. This little sample of texts aims to delineate some images in order to know Matthew's group, in social and economic terms, within the urban environment in Galilee by the end of the 1st century, a milieu that distinguished the group from the first generation of Christians, all of them poor farmers transformed into wandering prophets. Finally, the exegesis leads to the hypothesis that, given its personal characteristics, Matthew's group is forced into a re-reading of Christian traditions in a new perspective, in which poverty is a mandatory option to this new Jewish-Christian urban movement. Key words: Gospel of Matthew; Exegesis; Primitive Phristianity; Economy; Sermon of the Mountain. (shrink)

Sur quelles raisons Nietzsche fonde-t-il sa critique de la vérité et quelles en sont les retombées pour la caractérisation de la pratique philosophique? La découverte d'un antagonisme entre pensée et verité établit que l'irréfutable n'est pas assimilable au vrai, et en quoi la vérité est interprétation. Se révèle alors son statut de valeur, ainsi que la logique d'incorporation dont elle relève, qui en fait un genre d'erreur devenu pour nous indispensable. À titre de conséquence, la philosophie ne peut plus se (...) comprendre comme recherche de la vérité, mais bien plutôt comme interrogation sur la valeur de cette valeur et création de « vérités » nouvelles. Le philosophe authentique, esprit libre, est alors à penser comme amateur d' énigmes, sur un modèle épicurien et non plus platonicien. What are Nietzsche's reasons for criticizing truth, and how does he understand the consequences of his position for the philosophical praxis? The discovery of the opposition of truth and thought shows that being irrefutable cannot be assimilated to being true, and that truth is interpretation. It appears therefore to be a value, a type of error which has become essential for us, linked to a process of physical-psychological absorption. As a consequence, philosophy cannot be equated with the pursuit of truth any longer ; its aim is to investigate the value of this particular value, and to create new « truths ». Being a free spirit, the genuine philosopher is to be thought of as a lover of riddles, shaped on Epicure's pattern rather than on Plato's. (shrink)

Relativistic theories and arguments are fairly common in legal thinking. A case in point is Stanley Fish's theory of interpretation, which applies to statutes and constitutions as well as to novels and poems. Fish holds, inter alia, (i) that an interpretation of a statute, a poem, or some other text can be true or valid only in light of the interpretive strategies that define an interpretive community, and (ii) that no set of interpretive strategies (and therefore no interpretation) is (...) truer or more valid than any other. In this article, I discuss these claims critically and argue that the very idea of an interpretive community is more or less unintelligible, and that in any case Fish's theory is self-refuting. I begin with a few words about the methods and techniques of statutory interpretation(Section 2). I proceed by introducing Fish's theory of interpretation, giving special consideration to some difficulties in Fish's account of the concept of an interpretive community (Sections 3-4). I then introduce two types of relativism, cognitive and moral (Section 5), and argue that Fish's theory asserts cognitive relativism in the shape of conceptual relativism and relativism about truth (Section 6). Having done that, I consider Donald Davidson's well-known objection to alternative conceptual schemes (Section 7) as well as the popular charge that relativism about truth is self-refuting (Section 8). (shrink)