Abstract
Human existence is best developed in an environment of stability, order and direction. Law is a crucial institution contributing to the achievement and preservation of this state, which can be described in conformity with P.
L. Berger and T.
Luckmann as a social order. The social order (and hence its components) is always a product of past human activity and exists only when actual human activity continues to create it.
Legal interpretation of normative legal texts is one of the most important human activities that are capable of contributing to the preservation and reproduction of the legally-relevant social order. In order to perform its functions properly, it is necessary to ensure that the legal interpretation will be a pro-systemic activity.
This character will be acquired only if it is exercised by members of the society according to common methodological interpretative rules of the first and second level. The degree of objectification and internalization of these rules, which is manifested in the beliefs of the members of a given community about immutability and self-evidentness of these rules, is decisive for assessing the degree of systemicity of the methodology.
However, the own content of these methodological rules is also crucial. At present, we can speak stability of individual interpretative rules of the first-degree.
In other words, different theories of legal interpretation distinguish similar methods of interpretation (e.g. linguistic, systematic, historical), and even a common ius interpretandi can be considered in this regard. However, the same cannot be said about the second-level interpretative rules, which, among other things, regulate clashes between individual interpretative conclusions obtained on the basis of individual interpretative methods.
This potentially opens up the door for unsystematic interpretation. Therefore, the presented model of systemic legal interpretation focuses primarily on second-level interpretation rules.
The model distinguishes between the activities that occur on the one hand when refining the meaning of a particular text, i.e. where the nexus of meaning associated with a certain normative text and its context is reconstructed, and on the other hand, activities aimed at creating a number of parallel and supposedly equally relevant interpretation conclusions of a particular text, among which a particular solution is chosen. The possibility and conditions of the transition between these two activities are then one of the key topics to consider.