Hart argued that rules of law have an open structure of language and that judges should exercise discretion in borderline cases. Fuller criticized that legal interpretation should consider the purpose and context of a rule of law, and this debate has important implications for modern legal interpretation.
Interpreting law means clarifying the content of a rule of law and determining its scope of application. This task is essential to maintaining consistency and predictability in the law, but even if a rule of law works well in many cases, it can be problematic in some cases because its applicability is unclear. Hart was one of the first jurists to discuss legal interpretation with this in mind.
To understand Hart’s argument, it’s important to recognize the open structure of law. An open structure means that the meaning of language is fixed in the core cases where the rules of law clearly apply, but the meaning of language is indeterminate in marginal cases where they do not. Hart believed that most rules made in language, such as legal rules, are bound to have this open structure. This is because the nature of language is open-ended, and it is impossible to know all possible future events, so the applicability of a rule cannot be completely determined in advance.
For example, when we create a rule that says “no mopeds in the park” for the sake of quiet and peace in the park, the language used in this context determines the conditions that must be met for a case to fall within the scope of the rule. In the author’s mind, there are obvious examples like cars and buses that are within the scope. However, it would be difficult to envision whether toy cars would be included. The question of whether the quiet and peace of the park should take precedence over children having fun with toy cars may also be unforeseen, so it is difficult to determine whether it is permissible based on the preceding rule alone.
Hart believed that when the meaning of a rule of law is definite, there is no need to consider other factors, and rules of law are often definite in meaning. However, he argued that when a case arises where a rule of law is not clearly applicable, a judge cannot resolve the issue by logical reasoning based on the law, but can exercise discretion to consider extra-legal factors such as social objectives, policy, etc. In his view, judges perform a rule-making function because they set precedents that establish the meaning of borderline cases.
To understand Hart’s theory, it is necessary to understand his entire legal system. Rather than viewing law as simply an order or directive, he emphasized its social function and context. This emphasizes the role of law as a means of realizing social values and goals, not simply as a tool to enforce orders. From this perspective, Hart saw legal interpretation as more than just clarifying the meaning of language; it should reflect social context and purpose.
Fuller criticized Hart’s approach to legal interpretation for focusing too much on individual words, arguing that the context of a legal rule and the purpose it is intended to serve are fundamentally important when interpreting the law. This means that judges should consider the context and purpose of a rule prohibiting riding throughout the interpretation process, not only when the meaning of riding is indeterminate. Fuller illustrates this with the example of one person telling another to teach children to play, and the other person teaching children to play dice for money. Even if the speaker’s original purpose of teaching children to play is not specifically established, it can be interpreted that the object to which play refers does not include playing dice, because it is to be interpreted as embodying the universal purposes of humanity.
On the other hand, Fuller understood Hart’s theory that the law should be interpreted by emphasizing the language of the rule of law as opposed to the purpose of the rule of law to be a warning of the dangers of over-emphasizing the purpose of the rule of law. The rule of law would not be possible if it could not be clearly established in advance what behavior is prohibited and permitted by law. The debate between Hart and Fuller illustrates two important pillars of legal interpretation: the need to balance the clarity of language with the purpose of the rule of law.
Hart and Fuller’s debate also has important implications for modern legal interpretation. The debate over what standard judges should use to decide cases where the law is not clearly defined is still ongoing and remains a critical issue in the application and interpretation of the law. These discussions help to guide the interpretation of the law in an effort to achieve both flexibility and stability.
I’m a blog writer. I want to write articles that touch people’s hearts. I love Coca-Cola, coffee, reading and traveling. I hope you find happiness through my writing.