The Methods Of The Legal Interpretation

The methods of the legal interpretation

 The interpretation of the legal norm, through different methods has been a need that the human being has seen since the law has become of special importance to societies. At different times, man has faced the prevailing need to understand and interpret the rules. Just as Álvarez (1979) says ‘Interpretation is the technique that leads to the understanding of the meaning of the legal norm’. Many of the traditional authors of law conclude in the need to find a meaning to the legal norm to ensure that it is used more easily within societies.

With this need, a very broad number of interpretation methods have been created, this text intends to expose a large part of the methods that exist. Among the traditional methods of legal interpretation (or legal hermeneutics) we find grammatical, logical, systematic and historical. Within the methods of interpretation, two very recognized school can also be found, that of exegesis and historical. It can be affirmed that the first, the exegesis school, was born in France after the publication of the Napoleon Civil Code of 1804, had its boom within the nineteenth century and within its postulates it exalted the interpretation of the law by itself. In the rise of this school there is a great combination of different methods, the literal, the logical, the systematic and historical. The second school is the historic, where Savigny can be located, which believed that the origin of the law was in the spirit of the people that evolves over time;This school uses the combination of the different methods of interpretation.

Now it is important to briefly expose four of the most common methods within the legal hermeneutics. The literal or grammatical method is the oldest of all, it is born even prior to the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Code;The literal method tries to discover the meaning and meaning of the norm through the study and analysis of the text itself from which the norm comes. The logical method is one that, through the use of different reasoning, manages to find the meaning, for Almazora (1982), the logical method is one that consists in the decomposition of thought or logical relationships that exist between the norm or the set of norms. The systematic method is one that introduces the idea of the norm not as an isolated entity but, as a part of a system or legal system and therefore, must be analyzed and interpreted in this way. Finally, among the methods that are desired to expose in this text, the historical method is the one that intends to interpret the norm by resorting to the background of the norm itself, the ideas that the authors took into account when writing it and the reasons and principles that inspiredthe rule. These are not the only methods that are part of the legal hermeneutics, there are also the theological, pragmatic, dialectical empirical methods and according to the Constitution.

Referring to the question: What is the most appropriate method of legal interpretation?, It is correct to affirm that the way in which the norm is interpreted has changed, as well as the right has changed. If it is necessary to deliberately choose only one of the different methods of interpretation of the norm, the result would be chosen the systemic. The systemic method as previously exposed, is that in which the legal norm is taken as a part of a positive system, so for its interpretation it is necessary to recognize the general principles that govern it. It is to understand the norm not as an isolated part of a legal system but, as an active part within the positive system. Using this method of interpretation of the standard is very important since it allows the relationship between the different norms that make up the system, with this, a more relevant analysis of the standard can be performed, in addition that the interpreter helps to understand the different principlesGeneral that permeate this rule. Thus, carrying out the analysis and interpretation of a law (in its material and formal sense) that has been produced by the Congress of the Republic of Colombia, will necessarily be permeated in one way or another of any of the principles that govern the Constitution, therefore, it is necessary to perform the interpretation of the same within the whole of the Colombian legal system. If this same norm was given in a state with a different legal system or even a different legal tradition, perhaps the interpretation of the norm will be completely different, since it is necessary to understand the norm within the positive system as a whole.

As previously stated, although the systemic method of interpreting the legal norm, allows a much broader perspective, is true, as used in its boom the exegesis school, taking the different methods of interpretation and subtracting the formand the objectives of each. Thus, it could for example make a union between the systemic method and the historical method, from which a fairly complete method of interpretation could be generated since it would allow in a way, in addition to not isolating the norm and taking into account the general principles,make an interesting relationship with the intentions of the authors and even interpreting taking into account the important background of the norm.

By way of conclusion it is necessary to recognize that the union of the different methods of interpretation generate in the 21st century a more complete way of interpreting the very meaning of the norm. The complexity of societies and human beings who carry out the law has generated that the norms and the positive system of all states are increasinganother generates the absolute understanding of the norm that you want to interpret.