The relevance of philosophical theories of vagueness to legal interpretation

Abstract

I argue for the following Irrelevance Thesis: it is irrelevant to legal interpretation which specific philosophical theory of vagueness is to be preferred. In order to establish this thesis, I give a survey over the most prominent theories of vagueness, analyse the role that vagueness plays in legal interpretation, and point out why this role is independent from whatever theory of vagueness is actually correct. I also discuss recent accounts from Scott Soames and Stephen Schiffer, who both claim to deduce norms for legal interpretation from specific accounts on vagueness.