Problems of the uncertainty of law through the prism of the metamodern

Abstract

The aim of the study is to form the fundamental problems of interpretation of legal texts on the basis of modern philosophical approaches, as well as the search for possible ways to overcome them. The focus of the article is the legal interpretation in international law, due to a number of special characteristics, like the extreme diversity of cultural and legal traditions, the relative primitiveness of international relations, etc. The author does not seek to draw prescriptive conclusions, but to describe descriptively the workings of the language of law, its understanding and use. The problem of the perception of texts is not new for science, but the relevance of this work is related to the analysis of the postmodernist critique of the interpretation of law. The main part of this critique focuses on two fundamental problems: semantic indeterminacy, when subjects put different meanings into the words they use, and also structural indeterminacy, demonstrated by M. Koskenniemi, when the arguments of the parties are seen as equivalent, making it impossible to make a truly reasoned choice between the arguments presented by the parties. Overcoming postmodernist criticism is possible on the basis of the concept of metamodern, which implies overcoming the main ideas and concepts of the modern and postmodern era. General scientific methods are used, in particular, deduction — to apply the concept of metamodern to individual problems of interpretation, as well as induction — to form general conclusions based on the analysis of the practice of interpretation of legal texts. The removal of the postmodern thesis of semantic indeterminacy of texts is based on the appeal to the ideas of modernity about the establishment of rules of interpretation and acceptance of certain limits of reasonable interpretation. Overcoming the identified structural ambiguity in the application of legal norms lies in rethinking the universal hierarchical organized system of values of modernity. In the modern world, a system with quasi-hierarchical values operates, where, in the absence of an explicitly constructed universal hierarchy, states view some values as higher in priority than others, making it possible for courts to choose between value-based arguments.