Interpretation according to Chiassoni: The Unstable Balance between Moderate Cognitivism and Radical Skepticism

Abstract

This paper examines Pierluigi Chiassoni’s defense of a moderate non-cognitivist or skeptical conception of legal interpretation. It tries to show, through at least three different arguments —one related to the distinction between norms and norm-formulations, another focused on the thesis of the universal methodological ambiguity, and another related to the framework of legally admissible meanings— that a moderate skeptical conception of legal interpretation seems to collapse either with a moderate version of cognitivism or with radical skepticism.