Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpreting and Writing the Law in Digital Society: Remarks Made on a Shift of Paradigm

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article I discuss the nature and sense of legal reasoning as reasonableness, i.e. as judgement and equilibrium between normativity and factuality, and as constant approximation between these two dimensions. By (re)phrasing the intertwinement between legal hermeneutics and the nature and function of writing, the structure of the article is constructed so that the focus is on the changes currently occurring with the so-called ‘digital revolution’: in imagining a juridical system administrated through data analysis and algorithms, some contradictions emerge, especially concerning the nature, sense and task(s) of legal hermeneutics. The current shift of paradigm should be first of all addressed starting from the grammatological nature of the revolution at stake. Only from this perspective can the shift be entirely grasped and, at the same time, only from this perspective can the methodological conundrum be deconstructed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://nemosancti.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/67233942_10220175168757281_8352952628912586752_n.jpg.

  2. On the open texture of the law see in particular [1].

  3. The concept of horizon here refers to the remarks made in particular by Gadamer [2].

  4. Prolusione al corso di Diritto Civile pronunziata il 15 maggio 1948 [3: 12].

  5. [4].

  6. [4: 226].

  7. [4: 109].

  8. [2: 367].

  9. [5: 20].

  10. [6: 10].

  11. [2: 314].

  12. [2: 306].

  13. [2: 392].

  14. See in particular on this the remarks made by Rodolfo Sacco [8]. For Sacco, there can never be an objective meaning of the normative declaration, detached from the mind of the jurist, judge and in general of the interpreter.

  15. [5: 66 ff].

  16. [9, 10].

  17. [11, 12].

  18. [11: 264].

  19. [13: 279].

  20. [1: 120 ff].

  21. [14: 10].

References

  1. Hart, Herbert, and Lionel Adolphus. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gadamer, Hans Georg (1960). 2004. Truth and Method. London, New York: Continuum.

  3. Betti, Emilio. 1948. Le categorie civilistiche dell’interpretazione, Prolusione al corso di Diritto Civile pronunziata il 15 maggio 1948. Now in Rivista italiana per le scienze giuridiche, Napoli: Jovene, 5/2014.

  4. Garapon, Antoine, and Jean Lassègue. 2018. Justice digitale. Révolution graphique et rupture anthropologique. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Velluzzi, Vito. 2012. Tra teoria e dogmatica. Sei studi sull’interpretazione. Pisa: ETS.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zaccaria, Giuseppe. 1984. Ermeneutica e giurisprudenza. I fondamenti filosofici nella teoria di Hans Georg Gadamer. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Larenz, Karl (1960). 1966. Storia del metodo nella scienza giuridica (Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft. Milano: Giuffré.

  8. Sacco, Rodolfo. 1947. Il concetto di interpretazione del diritto. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Condello, Angela. 2018. Analogica. Il doppio legame tra diritto e analogia. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Condello, Angela. 2020. In and Out of Joint, in and Out of the Norm. On Rhetoric and Law. In New Rhetorics for Contemporary Legal Discourse, ed. A. Condello, 28–36. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lo Giudice, Alessio. 2019. Giudizio. Lo scarto tra intelletto e volontà. In Dimensioni del diritto, ed. A. Andronico, T. Greco, and F. Macioce, 249–272. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Taruffo, Michele. 1989. Giudizio (teoria generale). In “Enc. Giur. Treccani”, XV, Roma.

  13. Trujillo, Isabel. 2019. Linguaggio. Il discorso giuridico tra linguaggio e azioni. In Dimensioni del diritto, ed. A. Andronico, T. Greco, and F. Macioce, 273–291. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Modugno, Franco. 2007. La ragionevolezza nella giustizia costituzionale. Napoli: Editoriale scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by EU Jean Monnet (Grant No. 587184-EPP-1-2017-1-IT-EPPJMO-MODULE—2017/2020).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Angela Condello

Authors
  1. Angela Condello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Condello.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Condello, A. Interpreting and Writing the Law in Digital Society: Remarks Made on a Shift of Paradigm. Int J Semiot Law 33, 1175–1186 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09733-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09733-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation