In legal interpretation, Hart emphasizes the open structure of language and values clarity of legal rules, while Fuller emphasizes the purpose and context of the law, arguing that legal interpretation should embody social ethics and justice. The positions of both scholars provide important criteria for legal interpretation and contribute to finding a balance in the process of applying the law.
Legal interpretation means clarifying the content of a legal rule and determining its scope of application. However, even if a legal rule works well in many cases, its applicability in some cases may be unclear and problematic. 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 in language, like rules of law, 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, no special consideration of other factors is necessary, and rules of law are often definite. However, he argued that when a case arises where a rule of law is not clearly applicable, judges cannot resolve the issue by logical reasoning based on the law, but may 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.
Fuller criticized Hart’s approach to statutory interpretation as overly focused on individual words, arguing that the context of a statutory rule and the purpose it is intended to serve are fundamentally important when interpreting the law, meaning 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 is possible to interpret that play does not include dice gambling because the object to which play refers should be interpreted in a way that embodies the universal purposes of humanity.
Further emphasizing the purpose of legal interpretation, Fuller argued that rules of law should not be applied literally, but should take into account the nature of the law and the ethical standards of human society. He argued that legal rules are only a means to an end in themselves, and that we should not lose sight of the ultimate goals of the law, such as justice, fairness, and social stability. From this perspective, legal interpretation is a task that goes beyond mere linguistic analysis and requires a comprehensive consideration of the social, historical, and cultural context.
Fuller, on the other hand, understood Hart’s theory of interpreting the law by focusing on the language of the rule of law to be a warning against the dangers of overemphasizing the purpose of the rule of law. The rule of law is impossible if it cannot be clearly established in advance what behavior is prohibited and permitted by law. For this reason, while Hart emphasized the linguistic clarity of the law, Fuller held that statutory interpretation should be based on a comprehensive consideration of the law’s purpose and context.
In conclusion, statutory interpretation is a balancing act between the linguistic clarity of the law and the ultimate purpose of the law. The arguments of jurists Hart and Fuller offer different perspectives on how to strike this balance. Hart emphasizes linguistic clarity in order to maintain the rule of law, while recognizing the uncertainty that arises at the boundaries of legal rules through the open structure of language. Fuller, on the other hand, emphasized the purpose and context of the law and argued that legal interpretation should be directed toward the implementation of social ethics and justice. These two perspectives provide important criteria for interpreting the law, and can lead to fairer and more consistent judgments in applying the law.
