In this blog post, we take an in-depth look at the debate between Hart and Fuller to examine which is more important in interpreting the law: clarity or justice.
Legal interpretation means clearly understanding the content of legal rules and determining their scope of application. This task is essential for maintaining the consistency and predictability of the law. However, even if legal rules function without problems in many cases, their applicability may be unclear in some cases, which can lead to problems. Legal scholar Hart discussed legal interpretation with this in mind.
To understand Hart’s argument, it is first necessary to understand the open structure of law.
An open structure means that the meaning of language is definite in core cases where legal rules are clearly applicable, but uncertain in borderline cases. Hart believed that rules created in language, such as legal rules, inevitably have this open structure. This is because language is open in nature, and it is impossible to know all possible future situations, so it is impossible to determine in advance whether a rule will apply.
For example, when a rule prohibiting vehicles from entering a park is established to maintain peace and quiet 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. At this point, obvious examples such as cars and buses that fall within that scope will come to mind. However, it would be difficult to imagine in advance that toy cars would be included. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether toy cars are permitted based on the above rule alone, as it may not have been possible to foresee whether the peace and quiet of the park should take precedence over the enjoyment of children playing with toy cars.
Hart believed that when the meaning of a legal rule is definitive, there is no need to consider other factors. He believed that most legal rules are definitive in meaning. However, when a case arises where a legal rule does not clearly apply, he argued that judges cannot resolve the issue based on logical judgments based on the law alone, but must exercise their discretion, taking into consideration extralegal factors such as social objectives and policies. He believed that judges perform the function of establishing rules by setting precedents that determine the meaning of borderline cases.
In order to understand Hart’s theory, it is necessary to understand his overall legal system. He did not view law as simply a set of commands or instructions, but rather emphasized its social function and context. This emphasizes that law is not simply a tool for enforcing commands, but rather a means of realizing social values and goals. From this perspective, Hart believed that legal interpretation should not be limited to clarifying the meaning of language, but should also reflect the social context and purpose.
Fuller criticized Hart’s approach to legal interpretation as focusing too much on individual words, arguing that when interpreting the law, it is fundamentally important to consider the context of the legal rules and the purpose they are intended to achieve. In other words, judges must consider the context and purpose of a rule prohibiting horse riding throughout the interpretation process, rather than only considering the purpose when the meaning of horse riding is unclear. Fuller explains this by citing an example in which a person tells another person to teach children to play, but the latter teaches the children to gamble with money. Even if the original purpose of the person who told the other person to teach children to play is not specifically determined, it can be interpreted that gambling is not included in what is meant by “play” because it must be interpreted in a way that embodies the universal purposes of humanity.
On the other hand, Fuller understood Hart’s theory that laws should be interpreted with an emphasis on the language of legal rules as a warning against the dangers that can arise from placing too much emphasis on the purpose of legal rules. This is because the rule of law is impossible if it is not possible to clearly determine in advance what acts are prohibited and permitted by law. The debate between Hart and Fuller clearly shows the two important axes of legal interpretation. In other words, legal interpretation must strike a balance between the clarity of language and the purpose of legal rules.
Hart and Fuller’s discussion provides important insights for modern legal interpretation. The debate over what criteria judges should use to decide cases where the law is not clearly defined is still ongoing, and this remains a very important issue in the application and interpretation of law. This debate is part of an effort to pursue both flexibility and stability in law, and is very helpful in presenting the direction of legal interpretation.
