As a rule, every legal norm, law or act of any nature of state power, which sets the manner of behavior of subjects against the normative frame can be an object of interpretation. The legal activity of special elements of the state positive law also sets the object of legal interpretation. During the process of interpretation, as set by its object, a number of practical rules are respected, that aim to implement the essential elements of the positive law. As a rule, objects of interpretation are general and special norms. Object of intepretation are only the written norms, not customary norms, because for customary ones it is said that there must be special interpretation rules created. All manners of interpretation have the same purpose: to dismantle the content and purpose of the norm, in order for it to be applicable, the way they were issued by the creator of the legal norm. From the typological perspective, as official intepretations are considered: legal interpretation, authentic intepretation, judicial interpretation, administrative interpretation and in the end scientific interpretation, but the last one doesn’t have a binding character. To end the above process, the legal interpreter can use tools such as: 1. Linguistic interpretation as a grammatical interpretation, 2. Logical interpretation, 3. Historical interpretation, 4. Special legal interpretation, 5. Systematic interpretation, 6. Teleological (intentional) interpretation. The logical interpretation is unified with the control of setting the meaning of the legal norm. it is realized by using the logic of meanings by using measures for linguistic, systematic, historical, legal interpretation and other interpretations in general. The special legal interpretation can be otherwise understood as special interpretation and has the purpose of explaining the meaning of legal norms, by exclusively relying in the legal science. It is one of the most specific forms of transmission of the will of the norm creator, i.e. it expresses the internal will of the creator of the norm, such as the will of the legislative body, where it exclusively deals with the concrete interpretation of rules of behavior. Therefore we have to be very constructive during the interpretation of legal norm and here stands the individuality of the norm for which we talked above. The terminological interpretation is exclusively related with the legal terminology of norms, i.e. with the meaning of the terms of the legal norm, by concretely including the relevant legal norm. The compatible interpretation entails in itself the knowledge of the right in general, respectively it has to do with the knowledge of other legal branches as well, branches of law that are in force. With systematical interpretation of legal norm we have to deal with setting the legal meaning, i.e. its connection and interaction with other norms of legal norms and laws, which is in force. In order for the norm to be implemented it is required to set its purpose through interpretation, where the purpose of legal norms is specified. But when the legal norm is clarified by its creator, the discovery of the purpose of legal norm becomes easy, because the purpose is known in advance. Subjective interpretation is known related to its creator. Objective interpretation considers that the right meaning of norm is the one set by the code of meanings. We deal with evolving interpretation when the right meaning of legal norms is considered the one in the moment of interpretation. Thus, the meaning of the norm has undergone changes from the moment of creation until the moment of interpretation. The legal doctrine for the interpretation of legal norms based on analogy, respectively similarity it relies in two kinds of analogies called legal analogy and juridical analogy. Legal analogy finds support in concrete cases, while juridical analogy finds support in the whole legal system. As a rule, legal gaps can be classified in two kinds: 1. Initial legal gaps and 2. Subsequent legal gaps. In initial legal gaps, the creator of the legal norm left legal gaps while drafting the norm, respectively adopting it, and gaps like this that can be filled later on through its interpretation etc. When the creator while drafting the legal norm leaves gaps which were not predicted by him/her and this happened as a result of changes, different society evolutions, i.e. relations that appeared later, it is possible for these gaps to be filled later.
Read full abstract