Unpacking the alleged conflict between communicative legal theory and interpretivism

This paper examines the alleged conflict between the communication theory of law and legal interpretivism. It argues that much of the disagreement stems from conceptual ambiguity and the polysemy of key notions such as “law,” “understanding,” and “meaning.” By showing how different positions operate at distinct theoretical levels and often presuppose divergent conceptions of law, the paper explains why participants in the debate between the communication theory and legal interpretivism appear to contradict one another while frequently talking past each other. It concludes that reconceiving law as a discursive social practice may provide a more fruitful common ground for clarifying and advancing the discussion.