This paper addresses the question of the degree of indeterminacy in interpretation and application of law. Based on the hermeneutical notion that understanding a general advance is always a creative act of deliberation, we seek to show that this deliberation has always included in it a margin of arbitrariness, which must, rather than be overcome or criticized, be understood from the concrete needs of the law, not by an alleged adequacy standards previously set. Thus, reducing the arbitrary proposal is not based on a previous theoretical framework to guide the "correct"interpretation, but from a notion of dialogical hermeneutics, in which legal arguments are no longer understood as a purely logical and abstract ideas and are always being evaluated against a case, in a dialectical relationship with the direct antagonistic theses, and especially with the tradition that is coming up through that interpretation.
|
