Restrictions and Objective Character in Legal Interpretation: Stanley Fish vs Ronald Dworkin
The paper focuses on a well-known dispute of the late 20th century between Ronald Dworkin and Stanley Fish concerning the nature and boundaries of legal/court interpretation. Dworkin R. compares solution of complex cases with writing a novel “one by one” where every succeeding author must interpret the previous chapters and continue them in the best way under the accepted normative aesthetic theory. Hence, the history of law forms the context which must be considered in the structurally complicated theory of the heard case created by the judge and restrains his interpretations. In contrast to this, Fish S. rejects the objective meaning of the text and possible differentiation of its interpretation and creation. History of law is unable to restrict the interpreter as it itself is included in his attitudes derived from a set of per-comprehensions accepted by the community: every new judicial decision recreates the history forming “one by one” line anew. Both positions provide a complex view of legal hermeneutics, to bear in mind that of special value of Dworkin R. doctrine is his philosophy and jurisprudence of “inner point of view” which denies dualism of theory and reality and centralizes normative arguments of legal consideration and attitudes of institution of law.