The conformity between the main currents in judicial interpretation and the principle of legality

Abstract

In this article, the author analyses the main currents in judicial interpretation and their conformity with the principle of legality in the context of criminal law.

To this end, the author begins by presenting the main characteristics of textualism, radical intentionalism, the moderate purposive approach and the radical purposive approach.

Regarding the conformity of these currents with the principle of legality, the author concludes that in the field of criminal law, taking into consideration the requirements imposed by the aforementioned principle, no current which promotes the violation of the linguistic boundaries of the legal norms can be tolerated. On the other hand, the currents which promote compliance with the boundaries in question or the ones which encourage infusing flexible terms with content in light of the purpose of criminal norms are appropriate for the field of criminal law in view of their conformity with the principle of legality.

Thus, textualism, as well as the moderate purposive approach are suitable for the field of criminal law, whereas radical intentionalism and the radical purposive approach are not suitable for the field in question, having regard to the fact that these currents promote discarding the letter of the law and arbitrariness.