Abstract
Judges in different jurisdictions tend to quote foreign verdicts while deciding domestic cases. This practice flies in the face of the well-entrenched theory according to which law is a production of a domestic, sovereign lawmaker and foreign judicial decisions are irrelevant to its interpretation. In this paper I answer the question why the practice does not follow the theory and argue that it is not the former that should be changed but the latter. I show that the notion of a sovereign lawmaker is based on an author-centred theory of language, semantic internalism. This theory states that the sole source of meaning is the intention of a unique speaker. An alternative theory of language, semantic externalism, locates the meaning in the relationship between language and external reality, which is broadly similar in all languages and jurisdictions. Semantic externalism better explains why judicial borrowings are ubiquitous amongst different jurisdictions and thereby provides a better theoretical underpinning for this behaviour.
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.
