Der Rechtstext muss beständig fortgelesen werden, um bestimmte interpretative Positionen nicht auszuschließen. Damit sich der Interpret aus dem Kontinuum immer gleicher Lesungen lösen kann, muss der Text für den Einzug des Anderen offengehalten werden. Die juristische Entscheidung gerät so zu einer verantwortlichen Interpretation des Rechts: Der Freiheit des Interpreten, den Text und seinen pluralen Sinn immer weiter auszuschöpfen, geht die Verantwortung voraus, eben dies zu tun. Dieser Imperativ ruft den juristischen Entscheidungsträger in die Pflicht, den Rechtstext nicht als durch die juristisch dogmatischen Sedimente verschlossen zu betrachten, sondern eine Entscheidung jenseits des juristischen Schematismus zu treffen. Das Buch entwirft eine so verstandene verantwortliche Interpretationstheorie des Rechts. Legal texts must constantly be read and re-read so as not to rule out certain interpretative points of view. In order for interpreters to be able to disengage from the continuum of invariable interpretation, texts must remain open to permit otherness. Judicial decisions thus constitute the responsible interpretation of the law: the freedom of the interpreter to continuously draw from the texts and their plural meanings is preceded by the responsibility to do just that. This imperative calls upon legal decision-makers to not regard legal texts as shut and sealed by layers of legal dogmatic sediment, but to make their decisions beyond legal schematism. This volume draws up the concept for an interpretative theory of law understood in this way.

Autorentext
Dr. iur. Bennet Lodzig, M. L. E. ist Jurist und niedersächsischer Verwaltungsbeamter.

Klappentext

Legal texts must constantly be read and re-read so as not to rule out certain interpretative points of view. In order for interpreters to be able to disengage from the continuum of invariable interpretation, texts must remain open to permit otherness. Judicial decisions thus constitute the responsible interpretation of the law: the freedom of the interpreter to continuously draw from the texts and their plural meanings is preceded by the responsibility to do just that. This imperative calls upon legal decision-makers to not regard legal texts as shut and sealed by layers of legal dogmatic sediment, but to make their decisions beyond legal schematism. This volume draws up the concept for an interpretative theory of law understood in this way.