The author shows what interpretation in law is not and he offers a new hypothesis: The interpretation in law is a justified explicatory translation which meets Carnap’s criteria of an adequate interpretation. He identifies interpretation in law with a set of analytical methods which as such are value-neutral. They are always related to a particular legal system with its value background, and based on a particular philosophy of law. Beside legal erudition it is logical semantics that is an important support of interpretation. The author suggests a reconstruction of legal syllogism which is the methodological subject matter of interpretation.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.