Abstract

This essay explores and builds on the link between authority and interpretation in Ronald Dworkin’s Law’s Empire. Dworkin argued that legal rules should be interpreted as consistent with the moral principles that define a political community, not the intentions behind rules. By contrast, traditional methods of interpretation would interpret texts in line with authorial intent. Dworkin highlights the contingent and dynamic character of legitimate authority and shows how those features require a practice of interpretation that continuously justifies authority. Part 1 shows how Dworkin’s combined theories of interpretation and authority operate in the context of statutes and case law. Part 2 extends his insights to contract. Because private parties have contingent authority over the terms of their transactions, their intent cannot be the sole fountain of meaning in contract interpretation. Instead, ambiguous terms should be construed to render them reasonable in light of background legal duties.