Interpretation according to Chiassoni: The Unstable Balance between Moderate Cognitivism and Radical Skepticism
This paper examines Pierluigi Chiassoni’s defense of a moderate non-cognitivist or skeptical conception of legal interpretation. It tries to show, through at least three different arguments —one related to the distinction between norms and norm-formulations, another focused on the thesis of the universal methodological ambiguity, and another related to the framework of legally admissible meanings— that a moderate skeptical conception of legal interpretation seems to collapse either with a moderate version of cognitivism or with radical skepticism.
Copyrights are transferred for five years starting publication date from the author(s) to the Publisher. After this period, the content is released under a Creative Commons licence (Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International).