Interpretation according to Chiassoni: The Unstable Balance between Moderate Cognitivism and Radical Skepticism

Authors

  • Jorge L. Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4454/analisiediritto.v23i2.876

Keywords:

Interpretation, Cognitivism and Skepticism, Norms and Norm-formulations

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Published

2023-12-20

Issue

Section

The Problem of Legal Meaning. A debate on legal interpretation