Servants or Masters? Linguistic Aids in Legal Interpretation
Keywords:
Dictionaries, Interpretive Resources, Intrinsic Aids, Law of Interpretation, Linguistic Canons
Abstract
This paper presents the role of some intrinsic sources in legal interpretation. Some of linguistic aids follow from provisions of the law and other from the commonly accepted ruling practice or views expressed in literature. The position of those aids was verified through the analysis of case-law, literature, and provisions of law. The first section and second section focus on the priority of plain meaning rule and intrinsic sources in legal interpretation which is strongly emphasized in legal literature, case-law and the interpretative provisions of many countries. Next, it presents how certain linguistic tools work in case law practice, what problems they can cause and what problems they can solve. The third point addresses the use of dictionaries as tools of linguistic interpretation. The fourth section explores the role of selected interpretative canons often found in legal regulations and case law practice: ordinary meaning canon, gender/number canon, ejusdem generis canon, presumption of consistent usage and prefatory-materials canon. It is concluded that the priority of a linguistic interpretation is not absolute and can never be understood as its exclusivity. Linguistic tools are not in themselves determinants of correct meaning. In order to make a correct interpretation, it is necessary not to be guided, by indications labelled as objective, sometimes artificially imposed, but by the intention of the legislator, which such tools may discover and should only be used for that purpose.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Andreucci Aguilera, R. (2008). Los conceptos de la corte Suprema sobre interpretación de la ley a través de sus sentencias. Nomos, 1, 11-39.
Australia (1901). Acts Interpretation Act, as amended.
Bielska-Brodziak, A., & Tobor, Z. (2007). Słowniki a interpretacja tekstów prawnych. Państwo i Prawo, 5, 20-33.
Bielska-Brodziak, A., Tobor, Z., & Żmigrodzki, P. (2008a). Co każdy prawnik o słownikach wiedzieć powinien. Przegląd Sądowy, 7-8, 79-95.
Bielska-Brodziak, A., Tobor, Z., & Żmigrodzki, P. (2008b). Opis semantyczny leksemów w słowniku ogólnym i jego doniosłość prawna. Język Polski, 88, 3-13.
Canada (1985). Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21), as amended.
Carston, R. (2013). Legal Texts and Canons of Construction: A View from Current Pragmatic Theory. In Freeman, M., & Smith, F. (Eds.), Law and Language, 8-33. Oxford Press.
Cerdeira Bravo de Mansilla, G. (2015). Principios, realidad y norma: el valor de las exposiciones de motivos (y de los preámbulos). Editorial Reus.
Chile (2000). Código Civil Chileno, as amended.
Choduń, A., & Zieliński, M. (2009). Aspekty granic wykładni prawa. In Miemiec, W. (Ed.), Księga jubileuszowa Profesora Ryszarda Mastalskiego: Stanowienie i stosowanie prawa podatkoweg, 84-95. Oficyna Wydawnicza Unimex.
Colombia (1887). Código Civil Colombiano, as amended.
Czelakowska, A., Kubicka, E., & M. Klubińska, M. (2016). Słowniki przed sądem. Wykorzystanie dzieł leksykograficznych w orzeczeniach sądowych. LingVaria, 21, 45-64.
Dworkin, R. (1986). Imperium prawa. Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Ecuador (1855). Código Civil Ecuatoriano, as amended.
Ekins, R., & Goldsworthy, J. (2014). The Reality and Indispensability of Legislative Intention. Sydney Law Review, 36 (39), 39-68.
Eskridge Jr., W., Frickey, P., & Garrett, E. (2004). Cases and Materials on Legislation: Statutes and the Creation of Public Policy. West Academic Press.
Fish, S. (2005). There is No Textualist Position. San Diego Law Review, 42, 629-650.
Gizbert-Studnicki, T. (2009). Postulat zrozumiałości tekstów prawnych a dostęp do prawa. In Mróz, A., Niewiadomski, A., & Pawelec, M. (Eds.), Prawo i język, 9-18. Wydawnictwo UKW.
Gluck, A., Bressman, R., & Shultz, L. (2013). Statutory Interpretation from The Inside: An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons: Part I. Stanford Law Review, 65, 901-1026.
González, C. E. (2011). Turning Unambiguous Statutory Materials into Ambiguous Statutes: Ordering Principles, Avoidance, and Transparent Justification in Cases of Interpretive Choice. Duke Law Journal, 61, 583-649.
Ireland (2005). Interpretation Act, as amended.
Italy (1942). Disposizioni sulla legge in generale lub preleggi/disciplina preliminare al Codice Civile, Royal Decree of 16 March 1942, nº 262, as amended.
Jellum, L. D. (2008). Mastering Statutory Interpretation. Carolina Academic Press.
Jellum, L. D. (2009). Which is to be master, the judiciary or the legislature? When statutory directives violate separation of powers. UCLA Law Review, 56, 837-898.
Jellum, L. D., & Hricik, D. C. (2009). Modern Statutory Interpretation. Carolina Academic Press.
Kirchmeier, J., & Thumma, S. A. (1999). The Lexicon Has Become a Fortress: The United States Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries. Buffalo Law Review, 47, 227-561.
Konca, P. (2019). El jurista como “traductor” del lenguaje jurídico al lenguaje de los legos. Formulación comprensible de las motivaciones de resoluciones judiciales. Revista de Derecho Procesal, 2019 (1), 295-311.
Krishnakumar, A. (2015). Dueling Canons. Duke Law Journal, 65, 905-1006.
Lee, T. R., & Mouritsen, S. C. (2017). Judging Ordinary Meaning. The Yale Law Journal, 127, 788-879.
Llewellyn, K. N. (1950). Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed. Vanderbilt Law Review, 3, 395.
Macey, J. R., & Miller, G. P. (1992). Canons of Statutory Construction and Judicial Preferences. Vanderbilt Law Review, 45, 647-672.
Maldives (2011). Interpretation Act (Act nº 4/2011).
Marmor, A. (2013). Varieties of Vagueness in the Law. USC Legal Studies Research, 12-8.
Morawski, L. (2002). Wykładnia w orzecznictwie sądów. Toruń.
Morawski, L. (2010). Zasady wykładni prawa. Toruń.
Municzewski, A. (2004). Reguły interpretacyjne w działalności orzeczniczej Sądu Najwyższego. Szczecin.
New Zealand (1999). Interpretation Act (nº 85), as amended.
Nourse, V. (2016). Misreading Law, Misreading Democracy. Harvard University Press.
Núñez Vaquero, A. (2016). Breve ejercicio de teoría (realista) de la interpretación: veintitrés problemas interpretativos sobre la regulación del Código Civil chileno sobre la interpretación. Ius et Praxis, 22 (1), 129-164.
Pietrzykowski, T. (2012). Intuicja prawnicza. W stronę zewnętrznej integracji teorii prawa. Difin.
Poland (1992). CT Resolution of 29 January 1992.
Poland (1995). Sentence of the Supreme Court of 20 June 1995, ref. III ARN 22/95, OSNP 1995/24/297.
Poland (2001). Resolution of the Supreme Court of 21 November 2001, I KZP 26/01, OSNKW 2002/1-2/4.
Poland (2002). Ordinance of the Prime Minister of 20 June 2002.
Poland (2003). Supreme Court Sentence of May 16, 2003, II KK 65/03, LEX nº 78379.
Poland (2005). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 November 2005, ref. II FSK 1058/05, LEX nº 849612.
Poland (2010). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 August 2010, II OSK 1297/09, LEX nº 1613214.
Poland (2011a). Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 January 2011, II GSK 1496/10, LEX nº 742900.
Poland (2011b). Sentence of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław of June 14, 2011, file I SA/Wr 443/11, LEX nº 991946.
Poland (2011c). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29 November 2011, II GSK 1120/10, ONSAiWSA 2013/2/36.
Poland (2012). Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 October 2012, II FSK 1945/12, LEX nº 1269942.
Poland (2013). Supreme Court Decision of 5 December 2013, II KK 212/13, OSNKW 2014/5/38.
Poland (2014a). Sentence of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Bydgoszcz of 8 January 2014, II SA/Bd 1485/13, LEX nº 1457874.
Poland (2014b). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 March 2014, II OSK 2407/12, LEX nº 1495284.
Poland (2014c). Sentence of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gliwice of 10 March 2014, II SA/Gl 1360/13, LEX nº 1733957.
Poland (2017a). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of February 3, 2017, II OSK 1256/15, LEX nº 2253601.
Poland (2017b). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 12 October 2017, I OSK 829/17, LEX nº 2404398.
Poland (2018a). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 23 January 2018, II OSK 861/16, LEX nº 2466887.
Poland (2018b). Sentence of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Białystok of 8 November 2018, II SA/Bk 547/18, LEX nº 2576541.
Poland (2018c). Sentence of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski of 28 November 2018, II SA/Go 779/18, LEX nº 2592695.
Poland (2018d). Sentence of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski of 5 December 2018, II SA/Go 772/18, LEX nº 2593212.
Popkin, W. (2007). A dictionary of statutory interpretation. Carolina Academic Press.
Posner, R. (1993). The Problems of Jurisprudence. Harvard University Press.
Quebec (1867). Loi d’interprétation, as amended.
Rapaczyński, A. (1988). The ninth amendment and the unwritten constitution: The problems of constitutional interpretation. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 64 (1), 177-210.
Riofrío Martínez-Villalba, J. C. (2020). Alcance y límites del principio de jerarquía. Criterios para jerarquizar derechos, valores, bienes y otros elementos. Derecho PUCP, 84, 189-222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.202001.007.
Rynd, A. J. (1991). Dictionaries and the interpretation of words: a summary of difficulties. Alberta Law Review, 29 (3), 712-717.
Samuels, A. (1984). The Eiusdem Generis Rule in Statutory Interpretation. Statute Law Review, 180-183.
Santaolalla López, F. (1991). Exposiciones de motivos de las leyes: motivos para su eliminación. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 11 (33), 47-64.
Scalia, A., & Garner, B. A. (2012). Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Thomson West.
Sinclair, M. (2006). Only A Sith Thinks Like That: Llewellyn’s “Dueling Canons,” One to Seven. New York Law School Law Review, 50, 919-992.
Solan, L. M. (2011). Statutory Interpretation, Morality, and the Text. Brooklyn Law Review, 76, 1033-1048.
Solan, L. M. (2014). Is It Time for a Restatement of Statutory Interpretation? Brooklyn Law Review, 79, 733-756.
Spain (1889). Código Civil. Real Decreto del 24 de Julio de 1889 por el que se publica el Código Civil, BOE nº 206, del 25 de Julio de 1889, BOE-A-1889-4763.
Spain (1981). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 12 November 1981 (36/1981), BOE nº 277, 19 November 1981.
Spain (1990). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 4 October 1990 (150/1990), BOE nº 266 of 6 November 1990.
Spain (1998). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 23 July 1998 (173/1998), BOE nº 197 of 18 July 1998.
Spain (2005a). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 7 April 2005 (83/2005), BOE nº 111 of 10 May 2005.
Spain (2005b). Directrices de técnica normativa. Boletín Oficial del Estado nº 180 del 29 de Julio de 2005, 26.878-26.890.
Spain (2006). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 6 July 2006 (222/2006), BOE nº 185 of 4 July 2006.
Spain (2009). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 20 April 2009 (90/2009), BOE nº 111 of 7 May 2009.
Spain (2005). Directrices de técnica normativa. Boletín Oficial del Estado nº 180 del 29 de Julio de 2005, 26.878-26.890.
Spain (2012). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo of 23 February 2012 (STS 1478/2012).
Spain (2017a). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo of 28 June 2017 (STS 2497/2017).
Spain (2017b). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo of 16 October 2017 (STS 3530/2017).
Spain (2017c). Sentence of the Audiencia Nacional of 18 October 2017 (SAN 3979/2017).
Spain (2017d). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo of 26 October 2017 (STS 3734/2017).
Spain (2020a). Sentence of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña, Sala de lo Civil y Penal, of 24 February 2020 (STSJ CAT 90/2020).
Spain (2020b). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Social, of 11 March 2020 (STS 1145/2020).
Spain (2020c). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Penal, of 7 May 2020 (STS 1298/2020).
Spain (2020d). Sentence of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña, Sala de lo Contencioso, of 15 May 2020 (STSJ CAT 2114/2020).
Spain (2020e). Sentence of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia, Sala de lo Social, of 10 June 2020 (STSJ GAL 2509/2020).
Spain (2020f). Sentence of the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Social, of 16 June 2020 (SAN 1162/2020).
Spain (2020g). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo of 26 June 2020 (STS 1963/2020).
Stefaniuk, M. E. (2009). Preambuła aktu normatywnego w doktrynie oraz w procesie stanowienia i stosowania polskiego prawa w latach 1989-2007. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.
Tobor, Z. (2010). Iluzja wykładni językowej. In Lewkowicz, P. J. (Ed.), Konstytucyjne uwarunkowania tworzenia i stosowania prawa finansowego i podatkowego, 194-200. Temida 2.
Tobor, Z. (2013). W poszukiwaniu intencji prawodawcy. Wolters Kluwer.
Tobor, Z. (2019). Strategia interpretacyjna jako środek komunikacji prawodawcy i sądów. Państwo i Prawo, 11, 48-64.
United Kingdom (1978). Interpretation Act, as amended.
United States (2013). Connecticut, CT Gen Stat § 1-2z.
Uruguay (1869) Código Civil Uruguayo, as amended.
Wierczyński, G. (2016). Redagowanie i ogłaszanie aktów normatywnych. Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Winter, S. L. (1990). Indeterminacy and Incommensurability in Constitutional Law. California Law Review, 78, 1444-1541.
Wronkowska, S., & Zieliński, M. (2012). Komentarz do zasad techniki prawodawczej: z dnia 20 czerwca 2002 r. Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.
Wróblewski, J. (1959). Zagadnienia teorii wykładni prawa ludowego. Wydawnictwo Prawnicze.
Zeifert, M. (2019). Gramatyka przepisu jako przesłanka decyzji interpretacyjnej. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Zieliński, M. (2002). Wykładnia prawa. Zasady, Reguły. Wskazówki. LexisNexis.
Ziembiński, Z. (1980). Problemy podstawowe prawoznawstwa. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Zirk-Sadowski, M. (1994). Sposoby uczestniczenia prawników w kulturze. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, 56 (4), 47-52.
Żmigrodzki, P. (2003). Wprowadzenie do leksykografii polskiej. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Żurowski, S. (2014). Leksykografia w pracy prawnika. In Kubicka, E., & Kala, D. (Eds.), Kultura języka polskiego w praktyce prawniczej, 55-75. Zrzeszenie Prawników Polskich. Oddział w Bydgoszczy.
Żurowski, S. (2015). Leksykografia w pracy prawnika. Kwartalnik Sądowy Apelacji Gdańskiej, 2, 29-40.
Australia (1901). Acts Interpretation Act, as amended.
Bielska-Brodziak, A., & Tobor, Z. (2007). Słowniki a interpretacja tekstów prawnych. Państwo i Prawo, 5, 20-33.
Bielska-Brodziak, A., Tobor, Z., & Żmigrodzki, P. (2008a). Co każdy prawnik o słownikach wiedzieć powinien. Przegląd Sądowy, 7-8, 79-95.
Bielska-Brodziak, A., Tobor, Z., & Żmigrodzki, P. (2008b). Opis semantyczny leksemów w słowniku ogólnym i jego doniosłość prawna. Język Polski, 88, 3-13.
Canada (1985). Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21), as amended.
Carston, R. (2013). Legal Texts and Canons of Construction: A View from Current Pragmatic Theory. In Freeman, M., & Smith, F. (Eds.), Law and Language, 8-33. Oxford Press.
Cerdeira Bravo de Mansilla, G. (2015). Principios, realidad y norma: el valor de las exposiciones de motivos (y de los preámbulos). Editorial Reus.
Chile (2000). Código Civil Chileno, as amended.
Choduń, A., & Zieliński, M. (2009). Aspekty granic wykładni prawa. In Miemiec, W. (Ed.), Księga jubileuszowa Profesora Ryszarda Mastalskiego: Stanowienie i stosowanie prawa podatkoweg, 84-95. Oficyna Wydawnicza Unimex.
Colombia (1887). Código Civil Colombiano, as amended.
Czelakowska, A., Kubicka, E., & M. Klubińska, M. (2016). Słowniki przed sądem. Wykorzystanie dzieł leksykograficznych w orzeczeniach sądowych. LingVaria, 21, 45-64.
Dworkin, R. (1986). Imperium prawa. Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Ecuador (1855). Código Civil Ecuatoriano, as amended.
Ekins, R., & Goldsworthy, J. (2014). The Reality and Indispensability of Legislative Intention. Sydney Law Review, 36 (39), 39-68.
Eskridge Jr., W., Frickey, P., & Garrett, E. (2004). Cases and Materials on Legislation: Statutes and the Creation of Public Policy. West Academic Press.
Fish, S. (2005). There is No Textualist Position. San Diego Law Review, 42, 629-650.
Gizbert-Studnicki, T. (2009). Postulat zrozumiałości tekstów prawnych a dostęp do prawa. In Mróz, A., Niewiadomski, A., & Pawelec, M. (Eds.), Prawo i język, 9-18. Wydawnictwo UKW.
Gluck, A., Bressman, R., & Shultz, L. (2013). Statutory Interpretation from The Inside: An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons: Part I. Stanford Law Review, 65, 901-1026.
González, C. E. (2011). Turning Unambiguous Statutory Materials into Ambiguous Statutes: Ordering Principles, Avoidance, and Transparent Justification in Cases of Interpretive Choice. Duke Law Journal, 61, 583-649.
Ireland (2005). Interpretation Act, as amended.
Italy (1942). Disposizioni sulla legge in generale lub preleggi/disciplina preliminare al Codice Civile, Royal Decree of 16 March 1942, nº 262, as amended.
Jellum, L. D. (2008). Mastering Statutory Interpretation. Carolina Academic Press.
Jellum, L. D. (2009). Which is to be master, the judiciary or the legislature? When statutory directives violate separation of powers. UCLA Law Review, 56, 837-898.
Jellum, L. D., & Hricik, D. C. (2009). Modern Statutory Interpretation. Carolina Academic Press.
Kirchmeier, J., & Thumma, S. A. (1999). The Lexicon Has Become a Fortress: The United States Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries. Buffalo Law Review, 47, 227-561.
Konca, P. (2019). El jurista como “traductor” del lenguaje jurídico al lenguaje de los legos. Formulación comprensible de las motivaciones de resoluciones judiciales. Revista de Derecho Procesal, 2019 (1), 295-311.
Krishnakumar, A. (2015). Dueling Canons. Duke Law Journal, 65, 905-1006.
Lee, T. R., & Mouritsen, S. C. (2017). Judging Ordinary Meaning. The Yale Law Journal, 127, 788-879.
Llewellyn, K. N. (1950). Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed. Vanderbilt Law Review, 3, 395.
Macey, J. R., & Miller, G. P. (1992). Canons of Statutory Construction and Judicial Preferences. Vanderbilt Law Review, 45, 647-672.
Maldives (2011). Interpretation Act (Act nº 4/2011).
Marmor, A. (2013). Varieties of Vagueness in the Law. USC Legal Studies Research, 12-8.
Morawski, L. (2002). Wykładnia w orzecznictwie sądów. Toruń.
Morawski, L. (2010). Zasady wykładni prawa. Toruń.
Municzewski, A. (2004). Reguły interpretacyjne w działalności orzeczniczej Sądu Najwyższego. Szczecin.
New Zealand (1999). Interpretation Act (nº 85), as amended.
Nourse, V. (2016). Misreading Law, Misreading Democracy. Harvard University Press.
Núñez Vaquero, A. (2016). Breve ejercicio de teoría (realista) de la interpretación: veintitrés problemas interpretativos sobre la regulación del Código Civil chileno sobre la interpretación. Ius et Praxis, 22 (1), 129-164.
Pietrzykowski, T. (2012). Intuicja prawnicza. W stronę zewnętrznej integracji teorii prawa. Difin.
Poland (1992). CT Resolution of 29 January 1992.
Poland (1995). Sentence of the Supreme Court of 20 June 1995, ref. III ARN 22/95, OSNP 1995/24/297.
Poland (2001). Resolution of the Supreme Court of 21 November 2001, I KZP 26/01, OSNKW 2002/1-2/4.
Poland (2002). Ordinance of the Prime Minister of 20 June 2002.
Poland (2003). Supreme Court Sentence of May 16, 2003, II KK 65/03, LEX nº 78379.
Poland (2005). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 November 2005, ref. II FSK 1058/05, LEX nº 849612.
Poland (2010). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 August 2010, II OSK 1297/09, LEX nº 1613214.
Poland (2011a). Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 January 2011, II GSK 1496/10, LEX nº 742900.
Poland (2011b). Sentence of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław of June 14, 2011, file I SA/Wr 443/11, LEX nº 991946.
Poland (2011c). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29 November 2011, II GSK 1120/10, ONSAiWSA 2013/2/36.
Poland (2012). Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 October 2012, II FSK 1945/12, LEX nº 1269942.
Poland (2013). Supreme Court Decision of 5 December 2013, II KK 212/13, OSNKW 2014/5/38.
Poland (2014a). Sentence of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Bydgoszcz of 8 January 2014, II SA/Bd 1485/13, LEX nº 1457874.
Poland (2014b). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 March 2014, II OSK 2407/12, LEX nº 1495284.
Poland (2014c). Sentence of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gliwice of 10 March 2014, II SA/Gl 1360/13, LEX nº 1733957.
Poland (2017a). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of February 3, 2017, II OSK 1256/15, LEX nº 2253601.
Poland (2017b). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 12 October 2017, I OSK 829/17, LEX nº 2404398.
Poland (2018a). Sentence of the Supreme Administrative Court of 23 January 2018, II OSK 861/16, LEX nº 2466887.
Poland (2018b). Sentence of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Białystok of 8 November 2018, II SA/Bk 547/18, LEX nº 2576541.
Poland (2018c). Sentence of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski of 28 November 2018, II SA/Go 779/18, LEX nº 2592695.
Poland (2018d). Sentence of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski of 5 December 2018, II SA/Go 772/18, LEX nº 2593212.
Popkin, W. (2007). A dictionary of statutory interpretation. Carolina Academic Press.
Posner, R. (1993). The Problems of Jurisprudence. Harvard University Press.
Quebec (1867). Loi d’interprétation, as amended.
Rapaczyński, A. (1988). The ninth amendment and the unwritten constitution: The problems of constitutional interpretation. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 64 (1), 177-210.
Riofrío Martínez-Villalba, J. C. (2020). Alcance y límites del principio de jerarquía. Criterios para jerarquizar derechos, valores, bienes y otros elementos. Derecho PUCP, 84, 189-222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.202001.007.
Rynd, A. J. (1991). Dictionaries and the interpretation of words: a summary of difficulties. Alberta Law Review, 29 (3), 712-717.
Samuels, A. (1984). The Eiusdem Generis Rule in Statutory Interpretation. Statute Law Review, 180-183.
Santaolalla López, F. (1991). Exposiciones de motivos de las leyes: motivos para su eliminación. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 11 (33), 47-64.
Scalia, A., & Garner, B. A. (2012). Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Thomson West.
Sinclair, M. (2006). Only A Sith Thinks Like That: Llewellyn’s “Dueling Canons,” One to Seven. New York Law School Law Review, 50, 919-992.
Solan, L. M. (2011). Statutory Interpretation, Morality, and the Text. Brooklyn Law Review, 76, 1033-1048.
Solan, L. M. (2014). Is It Time for a Restatement of Statutory Interpretation? Brooklyn Law Review, 79, 733-756.
Spain (1889). Código Civil. Real Decreto del 24 de Julio de 1889 por el que se publica el Código Civil, BOE nº 206, del 25 de Julio de 1889, BOE-A-1889-4763.
Spain (1981). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 12 November 1981 (36/1981), BOE nº 277, 19 November 1981.
Spain (1990). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 4 October 1990 (150/1990), BOE nº 266 of 6 November 1990.
Spain (1998). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 23 July 1998 (173/1998), BOE nº 197 of 18 July 1998.
Spain (2005a). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 7 April 2005 (83/2005), BOE nº 111 of 10 May 2005.
Spain (2005b). Directrices de técnica normativa. Boletín Oficial del Estado nº 180 del 29 de Julio de 2005, 26.878-26.890.
Spain (2006). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 6 July 2006 (222/2006), BOE nº 185 of 4 July 2006.
Spain (2009). Sentence of the Tribunal Constitucional of 20 April 2009 (90/2009), BOE nº 111 of 7 May 2009.
Spain (2005). Directrices de técnica normativa. Boletín Oficial del Estado nº 180 del 29 de Julio de 2005, 26.878-26.890.
Spain (2012). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo of 23 February 2012 (STS 1478/2012).
Spain (2017a). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo of 28 June 2017 (STS 2497/2017).
Spain (2017b). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo of 16 October 2017 (STS 3530/2017).
Spain (2017c). Sentence of the Audiencia Nacional of 18 October 2017 (SAN 3979/2017).
Spain (2017d). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo of 26 October 2017 (STS 3734/2017).
Spain (2020a). Sentence of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña, Sala de lo Civil y Penal, of 24 February 2020 (STSJ CAT 90/2020).
Spain (2020b). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Social, of 11 March 2020 (STS 1145/2020).
Spain (2020c). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Penal, of 7 May 2020 (STS 1298/2020).
Spain (2020d). Sentence of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña, Sala de lo Contencioso, of 15 May 2020 (STSJ CAT 2114/2020).
Spain (2020e). Sentence of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia, Sala de lo Social, of 10 June 2020 (STSJ GAL 2509/2020).
Spain (2020f). Sentence of the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Social, of 16 June 2020 (SAN 1162/2020).
Spain (2020g). Sentence of the Tribunal Supremo of 26 June 2020 (STS 1963/2020).
Stefaniuk, M. E. (2009). Preambuła aktu normatywnego w doktrynie oraz w procesie stanowienia i stosowania polskiego prawa w latach 1989-2007. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.
Tobor, Z. (2010). Iluzja wykładni językowej. In Lewkowicz, P. J. (Ed.), Konstytucyjne uwarunkowania tworzenia i stosowania prawa finansowego i podatkowego, 194-200. Temida 2.
Tobor, Z. (2013). W poszukiwaniu intencji prawodawcy. Wolters Kluwer.
Tobor, Z. (2019). Strategia interpretacyjna jako środek komunikacji prawodawcy i sądów. Państwo i Prawo, 11, 48-64.
United Kingdom (1978). Interpretation Act, as amended.
United States (2013). Connecticut, CT Gen Stat § 1-2z.
Uruguay (1869) Código Civil Uruguayo, as amended.
Wierczyński, G. (2016). Redagowanie i ogłaszanie aktów normatywnych. Wolters Kluwer Polska.
Winter, S. L. (1990). Indeterminacy and Incommensurability in Constitutional Law. California Law Review, 78, 1444-1541.
Wronkowska, S., & Zieliński, M. (2012). Komentarz do zasad techniki prawodawczej: z dnia 20 czerwca 2002 r. Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.
Wróblewski, J. (1959). Zagadnienia teorii wykładni prawa ludowego. Wydawnictwo Prawnicze.
Zeifert, M. (2019). Gramatyka przepisu jako przesłanka decyzji interpretacyjnej. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Zieliński, M. (2002). Wykładnia prawa. Zasady, Reguły. Wskazówki. LexisNexis.
Ziembiński, Z. (1980). Problemy podstawowe prawoznawstwa. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Zirk-Sadowski, M. (1994). Sposoby uczestniczenia prawników w kulturze. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, 56 (4), 47-52.
Żmigrodzki, P. (2003). Wprowadzenie do leksykografii polskiej. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Żurowski, S. (2014). Leksykografia w pracy prawnika. In Kubicka, E., & Kala, D. (Eds.), Kultura języka polskiego w praktyce prawniczej, 55-75. Zrzeszenie Prawników Polskich. Oddział w Bydgoszczy.
Żurowski, S. (2015). Leksykografia w pracy prawnika. Kwartalnik Sądowy Apelacji Gdańskiej, 2, 29-40.
Published
2021-03-29
How to Cite
Konca, P. (2021). Servants or Masters? Linguistic Aids in Legal Interpretation. Ius Humani. Law Journal, 10(1), 73-102. https://doi.org/10.31207/ih.v10i1.237
Section
Papers
Copyright (c) 2021 Paulina Konca
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in our Journal comply to the following terms:
1. Authors keep their work’s copyrights, but they guarantee Ius Humani Law Journal to be the first publisher of their papers. They grant the Journal will a Creative Commons Attribution License, under which their work can be shared with the condition that it is appropriately cited.
2. Authors are aware and accept that the Ius Humani Team will try to give the greatest diffusion to the Journal, which means, among other things, that its printed and electronic editions will be distributed among different databases and scientific indexes.
3. Authors can establish further clauses for non exclusive distribution, such as publication on a separate book or placing in an institutional data-base. Nevertheless, a note should be always added to explain that the paper was originally published in Ius Humani Law Journal.
4. We permit and encourage authors to share their work through Internet before and during the editorial process to receive further recommendations and wider references (we recommend you read the article The Effect of Open Access).
