Truth and correction in legal interpretation

Abstract

In this paper I call into question that the truth value of interpretative statements constitutes a plausible basis for distinguishing theories on legal interpretation. The conceptions about judicial interpretation are usually differentiated in virtue of the position they assume regarding the truth value of interpretative statements. I will analyze some arguments to defend, and some others to reject, that interpretative statements have truth value, taking mainly into account the criticism that moderate realism has addressed to moderate formalism. I will conclude that it is better to make reference to the correction of the interpretations, instead of the truth value of interpretive statements.