In ‘What Has Philosophy to Learn from Tort Law?’, Bernard Williams reaffirms J. L. Austin’s suggestion that philosophy might learn from tort law ‘the difference between practical reality and philosophical frivolity’. Yet while Austin regarded tort law as just another repository of time-tested concepts, on a par with common sense as represented by a dictionary, Williams argues that ‘the use of certain ideas in the law does more to show that those ideas have strength than is done by the mere (...) fact that they are part of the currency of common sense’. But what does it mean to show that ideas or concepts ‘have strength’? How does conceptual strength relate to the distinction between practical reality and philosophical frivolity? And what special features of the law are supposed to make it a better test of conceptual strength than common sense? In this chapter, I reconstruct and develop Williams’s answers to these questions. I show why Williams believes that we need to test the concepts forming the currency of common sense against practical reality as embodied by legal practice; I identify seven features of tort law that make it particularly suitable to act as such a test; I distinguish three respects in which concepts can show strength, and unpack Williams’s metaphor of microwave-resistant concepts: concepts capable of holding and presenting material for intense critical scrutiny without succumbing to it themselves; lastly, I show how philosophy can learn to identify systematically weak concepts, and the limits of otherwise valuable concepts, by considering which concepts fail the test. (shrink)

The article presents so-called “derivational” theory of legal interpretation and analyzes its basic assumptions. The derivational theory of legal interpretation is still little known outside of Poland. The article is divided into two parts. The first part is presenting the normative model of legal interpretation according to the derivational theory. In the second part, the basic assumptions and features of the theory are analysed in context of some other approaches to legal interpretation. The author argues that there are two levels (...) of the derivational theory: local and universal. The local level of theory is related to the fact that it was designed for Polish legal system and legal culture. However, beyond its local features, the derivational theory is presenting strong theoretical framework and some significant universal ideas about legal interpretation. This creates universal level that can be called the “hard core” of the theory. The author characterizes the elements of this hard core, and in particular the most important element: the idea that the legal interpretation consists in the reconstruction of legal norms from legal provisions. (shrink)