Abstract
Interpretive argumentation is saddled with uncertainty. The predicament is brought about by the presence of competing theories concerning the very notions of legal interpretation and general written-law norms. The paper describes and compares two theories: the frames of interpretations theory and the container-retrieval theory (in its conventional linguistic meaning variety). By means of a critical survey, the frames of interpretations theory will be defended as being both immune from a pretended capital flaw (the impossibility of tracing a clear-cut distinction between explicit and implicit norms), and preferable as a theory of written norms, interpretation, and argumentation, on the three counts of conformity to juristic commonsense, ideological neutrality, and conceptual adequacy.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
