Direct Interpretation Of Priority And Its Limits

Semantic interpretation, also called direct interpretation or literal interpretation, is a means of using the remarkable and ordinary or expert meaning of a word or a sentence to interpret the content of the law, without considering the factors out of the plain meaning. Now we have achieved a consensus:Semantic interpretation is the starting point of interpretation, and it has the priority of application. But whether it has the priority of deciding the ultimate meaning, there are three different standpoints on it:determinism, indeterminism, and relativism. In this theory, I agree with the third point, that is, when facing the ordinary conditions, the result of semantic interpretation has the ultimate validity, without considering other means. But when facing some special conditions, the priority will face the challenge.By using semantic interpretation, we can explain the laws more effectively. More important, there are some values it can maintenance:the objectivity of the result, the stability of the law, and the relative independence of the articles. While, this priority is relative. The judge must value the clearness and the stability of the law, meanwhile, the equity of individual case is also very important. In the concrete case, the judge can not apply the means of interpretation mechanically, he must consider the factors of the form and the essence, only by this can he achieve a fully acceptable judicial decision. During this process, the judges cann’t avoid using the discretionary power. This value judgments cann’t be fully subjective, or it will change to be arbitrary in the trail.When using the means of interpretation, we face a problem:In what conditions can we exclude the application of the semantic interpretation? Specifically, when the result of the semantic interpretation is deficient, or deviate from the legislative intent or the important values clearly, then we can consider excluding it. Though we can hardly enumerate all the exceptions, and we also have some differences in understanding the three conditions listed, we have to make the efforts just because we need them.When excluding the priority of semantic interpretation, how can we achieve the result then? There are two conditions:when facing the semantically vague, or we can come to more than one result from the plain meaning, then we can use other means of interpretation to come to the ultimate conclusion; When the result of semantic interpretation deviate from the legislative intent or the important values clearly, then the judges can consider other means of interpretation or the legal doctrine to come to the ultimate conclusion.