Resumen de Three questions for moderate sceptics

Raquel Barradas de Freitas

• This article offers three challenges to moderate scepticism about legal interpretation. First, it is argued that it is possible to reject a rule-centric view of legal interpretation, without necessarily endorsing rule-scepticism. Secondly. it is suggested that a proper understanding of the distinction between what judges do as legal interpreters and what they do as legal officials, would help theorists to develop a better account of legal interpretation. Thirdly, it is submitted that, when understood as something said (and not as an act of scaring), a statement can be true or false. This last point challenges Guastini's claim that interpretative statements do not have truth value.