The wakefulness of the nightmare. One response to "Rule scepticism revisited".

Abstract

In this paper, I will focus primarily on his reconstruction of waking theory, which contrasts with Guastinis's position that certain interpretative statements are true. I will argue that proponents of waking theory would be happy to acknowledge some of Guastinis's criticisms, while managing to preserve as a characteristic feature of his theory that there are true interpretative statements. In other cases, I will argue that the criticisms are not acceptable since, contrary to Guastinis's view, his own conception leads to a distorted picture of legal practice by overemphasising the fact that the various interpretative instruments sometimes give the interpreter the possibility of choosing within a framework of possibilities.