Skip to main content

Constraining Adjudication: An Inquiry into the Nature of W. Baude’s and S. Sachs’ Law of Interpretation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Interpretation and Scientific Knowledge
  • 439 Accesses

Abstract

W. Baude’s and S.E. Sachs’s paper entitled “The Law of Interpretation” is a fascinating survey of a plethora of cases from the American common law system. The main conclusion of the article is extremely interesting from both philosophical and practical points of view. Namely, the authors claim that there exists something additional in the law that has not been identified before, and this is the law of interpretation. This law of interpretation is claimed to be a set of both written and unwritten rules, including the canons of construction. However, a closer look at the examples provided by Baude and Sachs throughout their paper proves some nonhomogenous nature of the unwritten rules of the law of interpretation. I claim that this nonhomogeneity comes precisely from different, more fundamental facts to which these unwritten rules of interpretation are related. Moreover, I argue that the elements of the law of interpretation that are indeed incorporated into the law are in fact scarce, and I investigate the reasons for this state of affairs. Two main reasons are analyzed—the nature of context and the structure of all-things-considered moral arguments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Greenberg (2017).

  2. 2.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1116).

  3. 3.

    Hart (2012).

  4. 4.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1142).

  5. 5.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1124).

  6. 6.

    The continental tradition relies on the saying that ignorantia iuris nocet, which means literally that ignorance of the law is harmful and, therefore, citizens are required to know the content of the law. Consequently, if the state requires its citizens to know the content of the law, it is the duty of the state to provide its citizens with the possibility of getting acquainted with legal content. This is made through the so-called vacatio legis, a 14 days period between the enactment of a law and it’s entering into force, when the new legal rules are published in publically accessible journals of laws. This way anyone interested can read the new law and if he or she fails to get acquainted with it, she or he is to be blamed. Since unwritten rules of interpretation are never published in this way, they must be somehow different from the iuris mentioned in the Latin saying, as interpretive rules are not that easily accessible to laymen.

  7. 7.

    Shapiro (1998).

  8. 8.

    Raz (2009).

  9. 9.

    J. Raz distinguishes between ‘reasoning about the law’ and ‘reasoning in accordance with the law’ and it is the latter that is performer by judges and contains moral elements. Raz (2009, p. 183).

  10. 10.

    Bulygin (2015).

  11. 11.

    Marmor (2014).

  12. 12.

    Greenberg (2017, p. 124).

  13. 13.

    Recanati (2010).

  14. 14.

    Borg (2006).

  15. 15.

    Recanati (2002).

  16. 16.

    Asgeirsson (2016).

  17. 17.

    Matczak (2018).

  18. 18.

    Greenberg (2017, p. 105).

  19. 19.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1128).

  20. 20.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1128).

  21. 21.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1092).

  22. 22.

    Endicott (2012), Ekins (2012), Marmor (2014) and Matczak (2016).

  23. 23.

    Recanati (2010).

  24. 24.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1107).

  25. 25.

    Goldsworthy (1994, p. 154).

  26. 26.

    Searle (1978, p. 127).

  27. 27.

    Goldsworthy (1994, p. 158).

  28. 28.

    Goldsworthy (1994, p. 161).

  29. 29.

    Searle (1978).

  30. 30.

    Goldsworthy (1994, p. 158).

  31. 31.

    Skoczeń (2019).

  32. 32.

    Sbisà (2017).

  33. 33.

    Skoczeń (2019).

  34. 34.

    Grice (1975, p. 44).

  35. 35.

    Grice (1975, p. 46).

  36. 36.

    Grice (1975, p. 47).

  37. 37.

    See Poggi (2011), Marmor (2014) and Skoczeń (2019).

  38. 38.

    Horn (1984, p. 13).

  39. 39.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1144).

  40. 40.

    Marmor (2016).

  41. 41.

    Burazin and Ratti (2019).

  42. 42.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1105).

  43. 43.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, pp. 1108–1109).

  44. 44.

    Levenbook (1984).

  45. 45.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1111).

  46. 46.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1111).

  47. 47.

    Raz (2009).

  48. 48.

    Rodríguez-Blanco (2017).

  49. 49.

    Moore (2004).

  50. 50.

    I thank Kenneth Ehrenberg for a helpful discussion of this issue.

  51. 51.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1144).

  52. 52.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, pp. 1138–1139).

  53. 53.

    Waismann (1947).

  54. 54.

    Baude and Sachs (2017, p. 1144); Llewellyn (1950).

References

  • Asgeirsson H (2016) On the possibility of non-literal legislative speech. In: Capone A, Poggi F (eds) Pragmatics and law: philosophical perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Baude W, Sachs SE (2017) The law of interpretation. Harv Law Rev 130:1079–1147

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg E (2006) Minimal semantics. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulygin E (2015) Norms, normative propositions, and legal statements (1982)∗. In: Bernal C, Huerta C, Mazzarese T, Moreso JJ, Navarro PE, Paulson SL (eds) Essays in legal philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 188–206

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burazin L, Ratti GB (2019) Rule(s) of recognition and canons of interpretation. In: Chiassoni P, Spaic B (eds) Judges and judicial interpretation in constitutional democracies: a view from legal realism

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R (2013) Legal texts and canons of construction: a view from current pragmatic theory. In: Freeman MDA, Smith F (eds) Law and language, current legal issues. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekins R (2012) The nature of legislative intent, Oxford legal philosophy, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Endicott T (2012) Legal interpretation. In: Marmor A (ed) The routledge companion to philosophy of law, Routledge philosophy companions. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsworthy J (1994) Implications in language, law and the constitution. In: Lindell G, Zines L (eds) Future directions in Australian constitutional law: essays in Honour of Professor Leslie Zines. Federation Press in association with the Centre for International and Public Law and the Law Faculty, Australian National University, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M (2017) What makes a method of legal interpretation correct? Legal standards versus fundamental determinants. Harv Law Rev Forum 130:105–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice P (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan J (eds) Syntax and semantics. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerra-Pujol FE (2016) Probabilistic interpretation. Univ LaVerne Law Rev, 38(1), pp. 101–121. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2794151 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2794151

  • Hart HLA (2012) The concept of law, Clarendon law series, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Horn LR (1984) Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In: Schiffrin D, Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University (eds) Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Levenbook BB (1984) The role of coherence in legal reasoning. Law Philos 3:355–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00654833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn K (1950) Remarks on the theory of appellate decisions and the rules or canons about how statutes are to be construed. Vanderbilt Law Rev 3:395

    Google Scholar 

  • Marmor A (2014) The language of law, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marmor A (2016) Defeasibility and pragmatic indeterminacy in law. In: Capone A, Poggi F (eds) Pragmatics and law: philosophical perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Matczak M (2016) Does legal interpretation need Paul Grice? Reflections on Lepore and Stone imagination and convention. Polish J Philos 10(1):67–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matczak M (2018) Why judicial formalism is incompatible with the rule of law. Can J Law Juris prud 31:61–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2018.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore GE (2004) Principia ethica, Dover philosophical classics. Dover Publications, Mineola

    Google Scholar 

  • Poggi F (2011) Law and conversational implicatures. Int J Semiot Law Rev Int Sémiot Jurid 24:21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9201-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz J (2009) Between authority and interpretation: on the theory of law and practical reason. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F (2002) Unarticulated constituents. Linguist Philos 25:299–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F (2010) Truth-conditional pragmatics. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Blanco V (2017) Practical reason in the context of law. In: Duke G, George RP (eds) The Cambridge companion to natural law jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 159–186

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sbisà M (2017) Implicitness in normative texts. In: Poggi F, Capone A (eds) Pragmatics and law. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 23–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR (1978) Literal meaning. Erkenntnis 13:207–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro SJ (1998) On Hart’s way out. Leg Theory 4:469. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200001117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skoczeń I (2019) Implicatures within legal language, Law and philosophy library. Springer, Basel

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waismann F (1947) Verifiability (Part II of a symposium). Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume XIX (1945), pp. 119–150. J Symb Log 12:101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2267243

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was funded by grant no 2018/30/M/HS5/00254 (Harmonia, Polish National Centre for Science).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Izabela Skoczeń .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Skoczeń, I. (2019). Constraining Adjudication: An Inquiry into the Nature of W. Baude’s and S. Sachs’ Law of Interpretation. In: Duarte, D., Moniz Lopes, P., Silva Sampaio, J. (eds) Legal Interpretation and Scientific Knowledge. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18671-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18671-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18670-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18671-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics