Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Andrei Marmor and Scott Soames

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199572380

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572380.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 04 December 2021

What Vagueness and Inconsistency Tell Us About Interpretation

What Vagueness and Inconsistency Tell Us About Interpretation

Chapter:
(p.31) 3 What Vagueness and Inconsistency Tell Us About Interpretation
Source:
Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law
Author(s):

Scott Soames

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572380.003.0003

This chapter identifies three categories of cases in which applying the content of existing law to the facts of a case doesn't determine a unique, acceptable legal outcome: firstly, those involving borderline cases of vague concepts in which no definite outcome is determined; secondly, those involving conflict of equally authoritative legal provisions in which two or more inconsistent outcomes are determined; and finally, those in which the content of existing law determines a unique outcome which is nevertheless unacceptable because it is inconsistent with a full rendering of the purpose the law was designed to serve. Regulative principles are offered to guide the resolution these cases, in which legal interpretation involves substantive revision or extension of pre-existing legal content. The unavoidability of such cases is discussed, together with the legal values served by legislative understanding of the uses to which vagueness and certain forms of inconsistency can be put.

Keywords:   vagueness, borderline case, textualism, meaning, semantic content, illocutionary intentions, perlocutionary intentions, legal positivism, normativity, legislative purpose

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .