Document Type
Response or Comment
Publication Date
2025
Publication Information
105 B.U. L. Rev. 1457 (2025).
Abstract
This invited Response to Bill Watson’s “What Are We Debating When We Debate Legal Interpretation?” examines the point and purpose of interpretive theories. Watson argues that theories of interpretation are about how legal actors should exercise discretion when the law runs out. The Response builds on Watson’s sophisticated conceptual framework to explain that interpretive theories can be about at least two other topics. They can be about the most normatively appealing way of operating with sources—whether this tracks legal content or not—and they can be about which criteria for identifying something as law the legal community should adopt.
Recommended Citation
Francisco J. Urbina,
Meta-Interpretive Questions and the Aims of Theories of Interpretation: Beyond the Remedial Answer,
105 B.U. L. Rev. 1457 (2025)..
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1941
Comments
Bill Watson, What Are We Debating When We Debate Legal Interpretation?, 105 B.U. L. REV. 1407 (2025) available at Boston University Law Review.