Abstract

The paper poses a significant question concerning legal reasoning – how are interpretative hypothesis created, and in particular how can they be justified. The main thesis claimed is that these questions may be answered with the use of topical and hermeneutic categories, especially preunderstanding, hermeneutic circle or consensus, and also with the anti-positivistic, anti-systematic and anti-formal position which is common to both topic and hermeneutic philosophical doctrines. This leads to the adoption of an "open legal system". The paper defends the thesis claiming a common relationship between both doctrines in legal philosophy, which results in accepting the term "the topical-hermeneutic context of legal discovery"