English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

The relevance of philosophical theories of vagueness to legal interpretation