The Legal Interpretation Of The Theoretical Interpretation Of The Thesis

Semantic interpretation is a kind of interpretation which the people give to the juristical-related text, based on the linguistic and literal level. Semantic interpretation is not only the first, but also the most fundamental method to carry through the interpretation for the legal text. Basically, the Semantic interpretation functions according to the semantics theory from the linguistic philosophy field. The literary content, which has undergone a long-time practice, gradually forms a rule with some universal validity. It mainly contains:just the rules, directive rules, antecedence rules. The ambiguity of the words, the vagueness of the language, the limitation of the legislator's cognition will all result in the imperfectness of the logicality, the systematization, and the words expressivity in the legal text. In a word, only depending on the Semantic interpretation is not a good way to deal with all law application problems.Philosophical-hermeneutics is first established by Hans-Georg Gadamer in his famous work- Truth and Method, which aims at studying the common condition to comprehend, instead of looking for a common method. For Hans-Georg Gadamer, the hermeneutics extracts and purifies the possible condition which can be understood by the semantic, and it can be treated as a kind of ontology rather than as a methodology from an essential level. Hans-Georg Gadamer puts forward the idea that hermeneutics is not confined to the instrumental value, but actually an orismology based on the practical philosophy theory. The legal hermeneutic, which is equipped with certain methodological implications, can not solve the problems of the legal practice at all, so it will definitely lead to the existence and development of the Juristical hermeneutics. Scholars like Savigny, Kaufman, Larenz, Joe Hart and Posner all have their own concepts for Juristical hermeneutics.There are three theoretical standpoints towards the tradition of Semantic interpretation, including "subjectivism" "objectivism" and "subjectivism of explanation". The three theoretical standpoints have their own advantages and drawbacks. The standpoints which the scholars hold towards the legal text interpretation, namely theoretical standpoints about the Juristical hermeneutics, can partly eliminate the oppositions and contrasts among the three methodologies. It can further make the best of the three worlds, promote the mutual cooperation for a rational explanatory result, which can cease the endless dispute. This type of Juristical hermeneutics standpoint can be seen as a "Comprehensive theory" one. Comprehensive theory is specific to different legal text conditions. Instead of confining to a certain theoretical standpoint, the comprehensive theory selects the opinions and theories from the three methodologies as the theoretical standpoints for the Semantic interpretation flexibly. However, when choosing only one theoretical standpoint for only one interpretive object, the situation will become more complex. As choosing means the exclusion of the other standpoints, and there are some differences in the applicable status of the three methodologies, basing on an unparallel situation. To draw a conclusion, this theoretical framework is of great importance to guarantee the regularity and effectiveness of the explanation activity.