Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:50:47.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VAGUENESS, INTERPRETATION, AND THE LAW*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Ólafur Páll Jónsson
Ólafur Páll Jónsson*
Affiliation:
University of Iceland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is widely accepted that vagueness in law calls for a specific interpretation of the law—interpretation that changes the meaning of the law and makes it more precise. According to this view, vagueness causes gaps in the law, and the role of legal interpretation in the case of vagueness is to fill such gaps. I argue that this view is mistaken and defend the thesis that vagueness in law calls only for an application of the law to the case at hand, leaving the meaning of the law intact.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Theory , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 193 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aquinas, Thomas. (2006) Summa Theologiae: Law and Political Theory, vol. 28, 1a2æ, 90–97 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Burnyeat, Miles. (1982) “Gods and Heaps,” in Schofield, Malcolm and Nussbaum, Martha C., eds., Language and Logos: Studies in Ancient Greek Philosophy Presented to G. E. L. Owen (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Christie, George C. (1963–1964) “Vagueness and Legal Language,” Minnesota Law Review 48: 885–911.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. (1977) Taking Rights Seriously, 2nd ed. (London: Duckworth).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. (1985a) A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. (1985b) “Is There Really No Right Answer in Hard Cases,” in A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. (1991) “On Gaps in the Law,” in MacCormick, Neil and Amselek, Paul, eds., Controversies about Law's Ontology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. (1998) Laws Empire, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Hart Publishing).Google Scholar
Endicott, Timothy. (2000) Vagueness in Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. (2005) “The Value of Vagueness,” in Bhatia, Vijay K., Engberg, Jan, Gotti, Maurizio, and Heller, Dorothee, eds., Vagueness in Normative Texts (Bern, Germany: Peter Lang).Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. (1975) “Vagueness, Truth and Logic,” Synthese 30:265–300, reprinted in Keefe, Rosanna and Smith, Peter, eds., Vagueness: A Reader (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Geach, Peter. (1980) Reference and Generality (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Rosanna, Keefe, and Peter, Smith, eds. (1996) Vagueness: A Reader (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. (1993) “Many but Almost One,” in Bacon, J., Campbell, K., and Reinhardt, L., eds., Ontology, Causality and Mind: Essays in Honour of D.M. Armstrong (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Lyons, David. (1995) “The Concept of Law (Second Edition) by H.L.A. Hart,” Law Quarterly Review 111:519–523.Google Scholar
McGee, Vann. (1998) “‘Kilimanjaro,”’ in Kazmi, Ali A., ed., Meaning and Reference (Calgary: University of Calgary Press).Google Scholar
McGee, Vann, and McLaughlin, Brian. (1995) “Distinctions without a Difference,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 33 (Supp.):203–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehlberg, Henrik. (1958) The Reach of Science Toronto: Toronto University Press), partly reprinted as “Truth and Vagueness,” in Rosanna Keefe and Peter Smith, eds., Vagueness: A Reader (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moline, Jon. (1969) “Aristotle, Eubulides and the Sorites,” Mind 78, 311:393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffman, Diana. (1995) “Vagueness and Context-Relativity,” Philosophical Studies 81:41–47.Google Scholar
Raffman, Diana. (2005) “How to Understand Contextualism about Vagueness: A Reply to Stanley,” Analysis 65.3:244–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. (2001) Justice as Fairness (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1923) “Vagueness,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy and Psychology. 1:84–92, reprinted in Keefe, Rosanna and Smith, Peter, eds., Vagueness: A Reader (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R.M. (1996) Concepts without Boundaries, Inaugural Lecture at King's College, London University (Nov. 6, 1990), reprinted in Keefe, Rosanna and Smith, Peter, eds., Vagueness: A Reader (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. (2008) “Interpreting Legal Texts: What Is, and What Is Not, Special about Legal Texts,” Philosophical Essays vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Baas. (1966) “Singular Terms, Truth-Value Gaps and Free Logic,” Journal of Philosophy 63:481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. (1994) Vagueness (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1953) Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar