David Tan

Intentionalist theories of legal interpretation are often divided between objectivist and subjectivist variants. The former take an interpretation to be correct depending on what the reasonable/rational lawmaker intended or what the reasonable/rational audience thinks they intended. The latter take an interpretation to be correct where the interpretation is what the speaker actually intended. This paper argues that objectivism faces serious problems as it cannot deal with disagreement: Reasonable and rational people can often disagree as to what the interpretation of a text should be. It also defends subjectivism against criticisms by objectivists.

This paper considers the connections between the Statehood/recognition debate in international law and social ontology. I aim to show that certain theories of social ontology, which I call Groupjective Internalism, can be used to defend Constitutive Theories of Statehood. Among philosophers whom I consider committed to Groupjective Internalism are major figures in the field: Searle, Gilbert and Tuomela. This is an interesting result as Constitutive Theories are generally looked upon with suspicion in international law.

Since the publication of Ekins’ The Nature of Legislative Intent, significant attention has been paid to common attitude models of legislative intention, that is, models that require unanimity among its group members. A common interpretation of Ekins is that these common attitudes are to be preferred over aggregated attitudes. I argue that any feasible theory of legislative attitudes will require non-trivial aggregation (ie. not based on unanimity rules alone). Two arguments are put forward in this regard: first, that non-trivial aggregation better explains uncooperative legislative behaviour and second, that mathematical problems with aggregation apply to common attitudes as well since they involve trivial aggregation. These arguments generalise to theories of common attitudes other than Ekins’.

In 'The Standard Picture and its Discontents', Mark Greenberg remarks that the typical way that legal theorists think about legal obligations does not sit well with the way the common law works. I argue that Alexander's and Sherwin’s Rule Model of precedent can deal with all the problems that Greenberg accuses the Standard Picture of having. Nonetheless, I further argue that combining the Standard Picture and the Rule Model ultimately leads to another problem: the inability of the Standard Picture – Rule Model to separate rule from dicta.