consistent.554 In turn, these purposes and requirements have a direct determining influence upon the final formulation of Hägerström’s doctrine of interpretation. If these purposes are to be upheld, then it becomes necessary to model the doctrine of interpretation in a teleological fashion, since only an expedient interpretation of the statute can fulfill the requirements of the law.555 This, furthermore, implies that the scope of interpretation must be broadened beyond the merely grammatical and literal.556 The problem is that when the scope of interpretation is broadened, it must be done in a manner that on the one hand, avoids an interpretation solely aimed at uncovering the exact intentions of the historical legislator (a subjective interpretation), and on the other, avoids an interpretation solely aimed at discovering the truly abstract telos of the law in the form of some kind of objective justice abstracted from reality.557 And finally, the interpreter must also avoid the common error of assuming that his own evaluation of the interests of society necessarily corresponds with the legislator’s evaluation of facts.558 One can thus argue that the interpreter’s task is complicated by methodological perils that the interpreter must avoid, for example, rigidly literal and grammatical interpretation; the historical subjective teleology; the indeterminate principles natural law and objective justice; and finally, the subjectivity of free application. In addition, it must be added that the jurist also must avoid mistaking a method of law for a source of law. a ca l l f o r s c i e n t i f i c p u r i t y 553 554 Hägerström,“Begreppet gällande rätt,” pp. 86-88;“Svikligt förtigande,” pp. 325-326. 555 Hägerström, “Begreppet gällande rätt,” pp. 86-88. 556 Ibid.: p. 86. 557 E.g., in the manner of the Danish scholar Carl Goos who Hägerström criticizes sharply, see Hägerström,“Är gällande rätt?,” pp. 82-87;“Is Positive Law?,” pp. 41-46. 558 Hägerström, Objektiva rättens begrepp, pp. 16-25;“The Notion of Law,” pp. 74-85;“Är gällande rätt?,” pp. 82-83; “Is Positive Law?,” pp. 41-42.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=