Introduction
In Polish legal culture, a set of deeply rooted myths concerning the interpretation of law persists. These illusions, stemming from the historical influences of positivism and formalism, foster a longing for automatism and certainty in legal interpretation. This article deconstructs these myths, demonstrating their negative impact on the quality of debate, public trust in institutions, and legal education. It reveals why moving away from naive literalism towards a multidimensional interpretation is a prerequisite for a just legal system.
Myths of Interpretation: Historical and Philosophical Roots
The mythologization of interpretation is the belief that law is a self-sufficient machine and its interpretation a purely technical process. This way of thinking originates from 19th-century legal positivism, which envisioned perfectly clear and complete codes. From this foundation grew bureaucratic formalism – a convenient strategy for avoiding responsibility for decisions by hiding behind the "literal wording" of a provision. Consequently, legal education, instead of fostering critical thinking, often trains students in the mechanical reproduction of statutes.
The Polish approach contrasts with other traditions. German doctrine has long employed pluralistic tools (linguistic, systemic, teleological interpretation). Meanwhile, in the American tradition, values and the political dimension of interpretation are openly discussed, exposing the illusion of neutrality.
Myths of Objectivity: Confronting Creativity
The most harmful myth is that interpretation is merely the reproduction of a pre-existing meaning. This ignores the fact that an interpreter always makes a choice between possible meanings. Hiding this under the guise of objectivity relieves judges and officials of their creative responsibility for decisions. Instead of openly arguing their choices, they can shift this responsibility to the legislator. This leads to a lack of transparency in the application of law.
Related to the illusion of reproduction is the myth that "a clear provision requires no interpretation" (clara non sunt interpretanda). This is dangerous, as "clarity" is a relative characteristic, dependent on context. Even seemingly simple norms, when confronted with an unusual situation, require a deep analysis of the provision's purpose and function.
Multidimensionality of Interpretation: Beyond Linguistic Analysis
Contrary to the myth limiting interpretation to judges, it is performed by everyone who applies the law: from a tax official to a citizen reading a contract. The thesis of its neutrality is also false. Every interpreter brings their own values to the process, evident in the interpretation of general clauses such as "the best interest of the child." The goal is not an unattainable ideological neutrality, but rather a rational and transparent justification of decisions.
Interpretation is also not a one-dimensional process. Reducing it to linguistic analysis is a mistake. Correct interpretation is multidimensional – it must consider the systemic context, the purpose of the regulation, and its social functions. However, it has its limits. When a problem cannot be resolved through interpretation, legislative intervention becomes necessary.
Conclusion
The deconstruction of myths surrounding legal interpretation holds crucial practical and political significance. It highlights that applying the law is an act of understanding requiring responsibility, robust justification, and openness. In a world where law increasingly becomes an arena for ideological disputes, freeing ourselves from the illusion of certainty and automatism is a duty of a mature legal culture. Only openly creative and thoroughly justified interpretation can build trust in the state and its institutions.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF