Excerpts From the Development of Methods of Legal Interpretation
Abstract
Legal interpretation is a stage in the application of the law, an indispensable operation whereby a judge (or other decision-maker) determines what a legal text means. The text does not stand alone; the words and expressions used in the norm may themselves have multiple meanings even in the context of everyday terminology, not to mention the differences between legal and other professional meanings. Furthermore, a norm has not only a text but also a context, a regulatory environment, a declared legislative purpose, an intention by the lawmaker or a set of moral expectations within which the text can be interpreted, etc. This paper attempts to present how methods of legal interpretation have evolved over the last two centuries and how we have moved from Savigny’s Canon to the sophisticated methodologies of today. At the end of the paper, we ourselves will attempt to provide a useful methodological classification of these highly fragmented and diffuse methods.
References
Angyal, P. (1909) A magyar büntetőjog tankönyve [Textbook of the Hungarian Criminal Law]. Budapest: Athenaeum.
Bessenyő, A. (2003) Római magánjog [Roman Private Law]. Budapest–Pécs: Dialóg Campus.
Bydlinski, F. (1982) Juristische Methodenlehre und Rechtsbegriff. Wien – New York: Springer-Verlag.
Devenish, G. E. (1991) ‘The Nature of Legal Reasoning Involved in the Interpretation of Statutes’, Stellenbosch Law Review, 2(2), pp. 224–241.
Fikentscher, W. (1975) Methoden des Rechts. Band III. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.
Fikentscher, W. (1975–1977) Methoden des Rechts. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.
Finkey, F. (1914) A magyar büntetőjog tankönyve [Textbook of the Hungarian Criminal Law]. Budapest: Grill Károly Könyvkiadóvállalata.
Földi, A., Hamza, G. (1996) A római jog története és institúciói [History and Institutions of Roman Law]. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.
Frank, I. (1845) A közigazság törvénye Magyarhonban. I. rész [The Statute of Public Justice in Hungary. Part I]. Buda: Magyar Királyi Egyetem.
Gast, W. (1988) Juristische Rhetorik: Auslegung, Begründung, Subsumtion. Heidelberg: R. v. Decker, G. Schenk.
Gebauer, M. (2000) ‘Uniform law, general principles and autonomous interpretation’, Uniform Law Review, 5(4), pp. 683–706. [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/5.4.683 (Accessed: 10 September 2021).
Grosschmid, B. (1905) Magánjogi előadások: Jogszabálytan [Private Law Presentations: Legislation]. Budapest: Athenaeum.
Heck, P. (1914) Gesetzauslegung und Interessenjurisprudenz. Tübingen: Verlag von Mohr.
Hoecke, M. Van, Ost, F. (1998) ‘Legal doctrine in crisis: Towards a European legal science’, Legal Studies, 18(2), pp. 197–215. [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1998.tb00013.x (Accessed: 10 September 2021).
Holdsworth, W. (1938) A History of English Law. Volume XII. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Holland, T. E. (1916) The Elements of Jurisprudence. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Jakab, A., Dyevre, A., Itzcovich, G. (2015) ‘CONREASON – The Comparative Constitutional Reasoning Project. Methodological Dilemmas and Project Design’, MTA Law Working Papers (Hungarian Academy of Sciences), 2015/9. pp. 1–24. [online] Available at: https://jog.tk.hu/mtalwp/conreason-the-comparative-constitutionalreasoning-project-methodological-dilemmas-and-project-design (Accessed: 10 September 2021).
Jakab, A., Dyevre, A., Itzcovich, G. (2017a) ‘Conclusion’ in Jakab, A., Dyevre, A., Itzcovich, G. (eds.) Comparative Constitutional Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 761–797.
Jakab, A., Dyevre, A., Itzcovich, G. (2017b) ‘Introduction: Comparing Constitutional Reasoning with Quantitative and Qualitative Methods’ in Jakab, A., Dyevre, A., Itzcovich, G. (eds.) Comparative Constitutional Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–35.
Jakab, A. (2013) ‘Judicial reasoning in constitutional courts: A European perspective’, German Law Journal, 14(8), pp. 1215–1275. [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S207183220000225X (Accessed: 10 September 2021).
Jhering, R. von (1877) Der Zweck im Recht. Erster Band. Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von Breitkopf & Härtel.
Kiss, G. (1909) A jogalkalmazás módszeréről [On the Method of Law Enforcement]. Budapest: Athenaeum.
MacCormick, N. D., Summers, R. S. (eds.) (1991) Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company.
MacCormick, N. (1995) ‘Argumentation and interpretation in law’, Ratio Juris, 6(1), pp. 16–29. / Argumentation, 9(3), pp. 467–480. [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733152 (Accessed: 10 September 2021).
Maine, H. S. (1861) Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society, and its Relation to Modern Ideas. London: John Murray.
Pokol, B. (2000) ‘Statutory Interpretation and Precedent in Hungary’, East European Quarterly, 34(4), pp. 465–488.
Pokol, B. (2005) Jogelmélet [Legal Theory]. Budapest: Századvég.
Pokol, B. (2007) ‘Interprétation et jurisprudence en Hongrie’ in Hondius, E. (ed.) Precedent and the Law: Reports to the XVIIth Congress / International Academy of Comparative Law, Utrecht, 16–22 July 2006. Brussels, Bruylant, pp. 397–422.
Potacs, M. (1994) Auslegung im Öffentlichen Recht. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlaggesellschaft.
Regelsberger, F. (1893) Pandekten. Erster Band. Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot.
Savigny, F. C. von (1840) System des heutigen Römischen Rechts. Erster Band. Berlin: Veit.
Scallen, E. A. (1995) ‘Classical Rhetoric, Practical Reasoning, and the Law of Evidence’, American University Law Review, 44(5), pp. 1717–1816.
Szabó, I. (1960) A jogszabályok értelmezése [Interpretation of Legal Regulations]. Budapest: Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó.
Szabó, M. (2005) Ars iuris: A jogdogmatika alapjai [Ars Iuris: Basics of the Legal Dogmatic]. Miskolc: Bíbor Kiadó.
Szászy, I. (1947) A magyar magánjog általános része különös tekintettel a külföldi magánjogi rendszerekre. I. kötet [General Part of the Hungarian Private Law with Particular Reference to the Foreign Private Law Systems. Volume I]. Budapest: Egyetemi nyomda.
Szladits, K. (1941) Magyar magánjog. Első kötet [Hungarian Private Law. Volume one]. Budapest: Grill Károly Könyvkiadóvállalata.
Tóth J., Z. (2016) ‘Legislation, Judicature and Constitutional Judicial Review: The Enforcement of Substantive Justice in the Practice of the Constitutional Court of Hungary’ in Ethical Economic Thinking and Competitiveness. Budapest: Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, pp. 118–124.
Vékás, L. (1998) ‘A magánjog gazdasági elemzése [Economic analysis of private law]’, Állam- és Jogtudomány, 39(1–2), pp. 3–19.
Windscheid, B. (1873) Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts. Erster Band. Düsseldorf: Verlagshandlung von Julius Buddeus.
Wróblewski, J. (1969) ‘Legal Reasonings in Legal Interpretation’, Logique et Analyse, 12(45), pp. 3–31.
Zlinszky, I. (1902) A magyar magánjog mai érvényében különös tekintettel a gyakorlat igényeire [Private Law in its Current Form in Hungary with Particular Reference to the Practical Needs]. Budapest: Franklin-Társulat.
