In this paper the author provides a brief sketch of an interpretative turn in legal philosophy. In Law’s Empire, Ronald Dworkin advances a new theory of law, complex and intriguing. He calls it law as integrity. Dworkin’s conception of legal philosophy consists not in regarding its task as interpretive, for he advances the problem of what he dubbs the ''semantic sting''. The argument purports to establish the thesis that a theory of law cannot be an explanation of the meaning of the word ''law''. He claims that legal theories like H. L. A. Hart’s theory of law cannot explain the theoretical disagreement in legal practice, because they suffer from this semantic sting. The author agrees with Dworkin that Hart’s explanation of law is stung by semantics. It is his Dworkin’s main argument to deny that there is a possible alternative to his way of conceiving the task of legal philosophy. The author argues that the importance of Dworkin’s interpretative turn is not that it provides a substitute for ''semantic theories of law'', but that it provides a new conception of jurisprudence. and Marek Neština
This essay deals with the relationship between philosophy of law and philosophy of language. The author closely follows the discussion concerning the determination of the content of the law which has been remarked by current semantics and pragmatics in philosophy of language. According to a view that has considerable currency at present, philosophy of language and linguistics have a direct bearing on the content of the law. The general outlook of this view - the communicative-content theory of law (the communication theory) can be captured in the following way. Legal texts are linguistic texts, so the meaning or content of a legal text is an instance of linguistic meaning generally. It therefore stands to reason that, in order to understand the meaning of an authoritative legal text or utterance, such as a statute or regulation, we should look to our best theories about language and communication., Tato esej pojednává o vztahu mezi filozofií práva a filosofií jazyka. Autorka úzce navazuje na diskusi o vymezení obsahu zákona, která byla v současné době sémantikou a pragmatikou ve filosofii jazyka poznamenána. Podle názoru, který má v současné době značnou měnu, má filosofie jazyka a lingvistiky přímý vliv na obsah zákona. Obecná perspektiva tohoto pohledu - teorie komunikativního obsahu práva ( teorie komunikace) lze zachytit následujícím způsobem. Právní texty jsou lingvistické texty, takže význam nebo obsah právního textu je obecně známkou lingvistického významu. Proto je rozumné, abychom pochopili význam autoritativního právního textu nebo projevu, jako je zákon nebo nařízení, a měli bychom se zaměřit na naše nejlepší teorie o jazyce a komunikaci., and Marek Neština