ABSTRACT
The history of the interpretation of rules is a record of the successive misconceptions about the nature of law and language which have swept the jurisitic schools of the continent of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon countries. Curtis points out that legal interpretation was taxonomic like the classification of Latin names for flowers. It was believed that each word has and can have only one legal meaning. The ‘pure theory’ is in conflict with the orthodox theory of interpretation – with the ‘one word one meaning’ school. In Kelsen’s view, the right application of law, the filling of the frame, is not a matter for knowledge, but for the will and the judge cannot find legal guidance for his choice, because the law leaves the decision open among the various interests pressing. Interpretation is most challenging when it involves the jump from the domain of rules to the domain of action.
