1 Performing legal functions with this in mind and, in particular, interpreting communications from the past, impose very special problems for the responsible legal scholar and practitioner. The praxis New Haven has suggested is hardly radical or unique. Professor Schachter, in quoting from Nullity and Revision's conception of the praxis, neglects to mention that the passage which he only partially presented appears under the heading of “Equity.” The discussion begins, page 560: Equity will be understood here as the complex of inclusively prescribed goals, which are rarely formulated in peremptory and conventional legal terms, but which condition all authoritative decision. The most craftsman-like legal decision that controverts these goals, though faultlessly regular by criteria of a narrowly conceived discipline, is nevertheless “splendidly null.” Whatever its legal perfection, a decision that fails to take account of minimum and maximum community goals will not be enforceable as an authoritative renouncement. Hence, equity in its broader sense is a factor of effectiveness. Page 561 quotes, in accord, such enfants terribles as Manley Hudson, Julius Stone, Benjamin Cardozo, Dennis Lloyd, John Chipman Gray, and mirabile dictu Wolfgang Friedmann. Id.at 561 footnotes 8-13. It is curious how often self-declared textualists are careless with texts.

2 Reisman, International Lawmaking: A Process of Communication1981 PROC. AM. SOC'Y INT'L L. 101.