[ad_1]
Interpretivism is a legal philosophy associated with Ronald Dworkin that views law as interpreted by lawyers and jurists. It has similarities to natural law theory and legal positivism, but argues that legal practice is justified with reference to external values and interpretation is part of creating and defining law.
Interpretivism, sometimes called legal interpretivism to distinguish it from similar schools of thought in other disciplines, is a school of legal philosophy commonly associated with the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin. Interpretivism views law as interpreted by the practice of lawyers and jurists, and argues that this is the nature of law itself. Unlike other schools of philosophy of law, interpretivism considers law not as something imposed from outside, but as a product of the practice of law. Interpretivists argue that law is related to ethics and morals, but they are not the same thing.
Legal interpretivism was developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It emerged in a legal world dominated by two ways of thinking about legal philosophy: legal positivism and natural law theory. Interpretivism has some similarities to both schools of thought and some important differences. It has sometimes been thought of as somewhere in between the two.
Natural law theory is the older of the two schools of thought. Like all legal philosophies, it contains several viewpoints, but they all share the basic idea that there is an underlying natural law that serves as the foundation for man-made law. Natural law consists of fundamental principles of fairness, justice and equity that transcend cultural boundaries, and artificial or “positive” law should respect them. In some traditions natural law is believed to derive from divine or supernatural sources, while others see it as inherent in human nature.
Legal positivism is a school of thought that claims that laws are made by human societies, not discovered in nature, and have no intrinsic connection to ethics or justice, except to the extent that these considerations affect the people who make them. they create. Legal positivists are more interested in studying the ways laws are created and enforced. Positivism is concerned with understanding the human institution of law, not with approving or opposing any law or particular way of legislating.
Legal interpretivism has some similarities to both schools of thought. Like natural law advocates, interpretivists agree that law has an external purpose; however, they do not believe that laws exist independently of human construction. Like legal positivists, they accept that law is a product of human society and politics. Unlike legal positivism, however, interpretivism argues that legal practice is justified with reference to external values and argues that the act of interpretation is actually part of the process of creating and defining law.
[ad_2]