Inferring the Intention. Or, What Law the Legislature Could Have Intended to Make
Izvleček
What can be inferred from the silence of the legislature about a certain circumstance? What kind of intention, if any, can be at-tributed to the silent legislature? We show in the first part of the paper that antithetical claims can be inferred from it, depending on the assumptions that one uses as premises of the argument purported to show what the legislative intention is. In the second part of the paper we propose an inferenti-al analysis of these assumptions, which specifies the pragmatic conditions under which such opposite uses of the argument are justified. The study of these conditions leads us to highlight the connecting function of the argument from intention in legal ar-gumentation, and some interesting features of counterfactuals in legal reasoning.
References
Austin, J.L. (1979), Philosophical Papers. 3rd ed. by J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Barak, A. (2005). Purposive Interpretation in Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bernatchez, S. (2007). “De la représentativité du pouvoir législatif à la recherche de l’intention du
législateur: les fondements et les limites de la démocratie représentative”. Les cahiers de droit
48, pp. 449-476.
Boella, G. et al. (2010). “Lex minus dixit quam voluit, lex magis dixit quam voluit: A formal study
on legal compliance and interpretation”. In P. Casanovas et al. (eds.), AI approaches to the complexity
of legal systems, in press. Berlin: Springer.
Boudreau, C. et al. (2007). “What Statutes Mean: Interpretive Lessons from Positive Theories of
Communication and Legislation”. San Diego Law Review 44, pp. 957-992.
Brandom, R.B. (1994). Making It Explicit. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University
Press.
Bratman, M.E. (1987). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge (Mass.) and London:
Harvard University Press.
Bratman, M.E. (1999). Faces of Intention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, T. (2001). “Legislative Intent and Democratic Decision Making”. In Naffine et al. (2001),
pp. 291-319.
Canale, D. & Tuzet, G. (2007). “On Legal Inferentialism. Toward a Pragmatics of Semantic Content
in Legal Interpretation?”. Ratio Juris 20, pp. 32-44.
Canale, D. & Tuzet, G. (2010). “What Is the Reason for This Rule? An Inferential Account of the Ratio
Legis”. Argumentation 24, pp. 197-210.
Ekelöf, P.O. (1958). “Teleological Construction of Statutes”. In: Scandinavian Studies in Law, Vol. 2,
ed. by F. Schmidt, pp. 75-117. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Feteris, E. (2005). “The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and
Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective”. Argumentation
19, pp. 459-470.
Feteris, E. (2008). “Strategic Maneuvering with the Intention of the Legislator in the Justification of
Judicial Decisions”. Argumentation 22, pp. 335-353.
Fuller, L.L. (1969). The Morality of Law. Revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Goldsworthy, J. (1997). “Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation”. Federal Law Review 25, pp.
1-50.
Goldsworthy, J. (2005). “Legislative Intentions, Legislative Supremacy, and Legal Positivism”. San
Diego Law Review 42, pp. 493-518.
Greenawalt, K. (2000). “Are Mental States Relevant for Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation?”.
Cornell Law Review 85, pp. 1609-1672.
Honoré, T. (1987). “How Is Law Possible?”. In Id., Making Law Bind. Essays Legal and Philosophical,
pp. 1-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levi, E.H. (1948). “An Introduction to Legal Reasoning”. The University of Chicago Law Review 15,
pp. 501-574.
MacPherson, J.A.E. (2010). “Legislative Intentionalism and Proxy Agency”. Law and Philosophy 29,
pp. 1-29.
Marmor, A. (2001). Positive Law and Objective Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Marmor, A. (2005). Interpretation and Legal Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
McCormick, D.N. & Summers, R.S. (eds.) (1991). Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative Study. Aldershot:
Dartmouth.
Moreso, J.J. (2005). Lógica, argumentación e interpretación en el derecho. Barcelona: Editorial
UOC.
Naffine, N. et al. (eds.) (2001). Intention in Law and Philosophy. Aldershot: Ashgate-Dartmouth.
Pettit, P. (2001). Collective Intentions. In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. 241-254.
Pino, G. (2008). “Il linguaggio dei diritti”. Ragion pratica 31, pp. 393-409.
Radin, M. (1930). “Statutory Interpretation”. Harvard Law Review 43, pp. 863-885.
Raz, J. (1996). “Intention in Interpretation”. In R.P. George (ed.), The Autonomy of Law. Essays on
Legal Positivism, pp. 249-286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stoljar, N. (1998). “Counterfactuals in Interpretation: The Case Against Intentionalism”. Adelaide
Law Review 20, pp. 29-59.
Stoljar, N. (2001a). “Vagueness, Counterfactual Intentions, and Legal Interpretation”. Legal Theory
7, pp. 447-465.
Stoljar, N. (2001b). “Postulated Authors and Hypothetical Intentions”. In Naffine et al. (2001), pp.
271-290.
Williams, J. (2001). “Constitutional Intention: The Limits of Originalism”. In Naffine et al. (2001),
pp. 321-341.
University Press.
Barak, A. (2005). Purposive Interpretation in Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bernatchez, S. (2007). “De la représentativité du pouvoir législatif à la recherche de l’intention du
législateur: les fondements et les limites de la démocratie représentative”. Les cahiers de droit
48, pp. 449-476.
Boella, G. et al. (2010). “Lex minus dixit quam voluit, lex magis dixit quam voluit: A formal study
on legal compliance and interpretation”. In P. Casanovas et al. (eds.), AI approaches to the complexity
of legal systems, in press. Berlin: Springer.
Boudreau, C. et al. (2007). “What Statutes Mean: Interpretive Lessons from Positive Theories of
Communication and Legislation”. San Diego Law Review 44, pp. 957-992.
Brandom, R.B. (1994). Making It Explicit. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University
Press.
Bratman, M.E. (1987). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge (Mass.) and London:
Harvard University Press.
Bratman, M.E. (1999). Faces of Intention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, T. (2001). “Legislative Intent and Democratic Decision Making”. In Naffine et al. (2001),
pp. 291-319.
Canale, D. & Tuzet, G. (2007). “On Legal Inferentialism. Toward a Pragmatics of Semantic Content
in Legal Interpretation?”. Ratio Juris 20, pp. 32-44.
Canale, D. & Tuzet, G. (2010). “What Is the Reason for This Rule? An Inferential Account of the Ratio
Legis”. Argumentation 24, pp. 197-210.
Ekelöf, P.O. (1958). “Teleological Construction of Statutes”. In: Scandinavian Studies in Law, Vol. 2,
ed. by F. Schmidt, pp. 75-117. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Feteris, E. (2005). “The Rational Reconstruction of Argumentation Referring to Consequences and
Purposes in the Application of Legal Rules: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective”. Argumentation
19, pp. 459-470.
Feteris, E. (2008). “Strategic Maneuvering with the Intention of the Legislator in the Justification of
Judicial Decisions”. Argumentation 22, pp. 335-353.
Fuller, L.L. (1969). The Morality of Law. Revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Goldsworthy, J. (1997). “Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation”. Federal Law Review 25, pp.
1-50.
Goldsworthy, J. (2005). “Legislative Intentions, Legislative Supremacy, and Legal Positivism”. San
Diego Law Review 42, pp. 493-518.
Greenawalt, K. (2000). “Are Mental States Relevant for Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation?”.
Cornell Law Review 85, pp. 1609-1672.
Honoré, T. (1987). “How Is Law Possible?”. In Id., Making Law Bind. Essays Legal and Philosophical,
pp. 1-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levi, E.H. (1948). “An Introduction to Legal Reasoning”. The University of Chicago Law Review 15,
pp. 501-574.
MacPherson, J.A.E. (2010). “Legislative Intentionalism and Proxy Agency”. Law and Philosophy 29,
pp. 1-29.
Marmor, A. (2001). Positive Law and Objective Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Marmor, A. (2005). Interpretation and Legal Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
McCormick, D.N. & Summers, R.S. (eds.) (1991). Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative Study. Aldershot:
Dartmouth.
Moreso, J.J. (2005). Lógica, argumentación e interpretación en el derecho. Barcelona: Editorial
UOC.
Naffine, N. et al. (eds.) (2001). Intention in Law and Philosophy. Aldershot: Ashgate-Dartmouth.
Pettit, P. (2001). Collective Intentions. In Naffine et al. (2001), pp. 241-254.
Pino, G. (2008). “Il linguaggio dei diritti”. Ragion pratica 31, pp. 393-409.
Radin, M. (1930). “Statutory Interpretation”. Harvard Law Review 43, pp. 863-885.
Raz, J. (1996). “Intention in Interpretation”. In R.P. George (ed.), The Autonomy of Law. Essays on
Legal Positivism, pp. 249-286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stoljar, N. (1998). “Counterfactuals in Interpretation: The Case Against Intentionalism”. Adelaide
Law Review 20, pp. 29-59.
Stoljar, N. (2001a). “Vagueness, Counterfactual Intentions, and Legal Interpretation”. Legal Theory
7, pp. 447-465.
Stoljar, N. (2001b). “Postulated Authors and Hypothetical Intentions”. In Naffine et al. (2001), pp.
271-290.
Williams, J. (2001). “Constitutional Intention: The Limits of Originalism”. In Naffine et al. (2001),
pp. 321-341.
Objavljeno
2019-06-20
Section
Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitting article, which will be published (print and online) in journal Dignitas by Nova univerza, Fakulteta za slovenske in mednarodne študije. Author’s name will be evident in the article in journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in hands of the publisher.
- Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit their self to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. - Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
