Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gaps in the Law Fulfilled with Meaning: A Semiotic Approach for Decoding Gaps in Law

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Semiotics provides the tools for studying the process of decoding law, one of the most important tasks in the daily work of courts. The semiotic review of juridical interpretation and gap filling concludes that in juridical and semiotic methodology the same question—how a norm is interpreted—is answered from different perspectives. According to the semiotic model proposed in the current paper, juridical interpretation can be structured into three levels: intra-, inter- and supranormative sign-process. For legal theory semiotics can highlight the similarities in the interpretation of norms and gaps. In gap filling the iconic, indexical and symbolic relations compensate for the missing of intranormative semiosis. The applicability of the proposed model is tested on an example of case law. Semiotic investigation of the judgements of Supreme Court of Estonia and European Court of Human Rights shows that semiotics gives a well structured picture of the juridical interpretation process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Many semioticians are enthusiastic about employing semiotic models in law [4, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19].

  2. The construction of meaning in a text is different from the construction of meaning in behavior (court room, psychology, communicative strategies, argumentation praxis, etc.). Common law interpretation is the research subject of Goodrich and Hachamovitch [8].

  3. The Estonian legal system is part of the Civil Law system.

  4. The definition of code can be more detailed than the way Sebeok and Danesi define it. Since the advent of semiotic studies and the growing interest in communication systems, the word ‘code’ has become popular, a potentially devastating phenomenon which carries with it the stigma of misuse, abuse, and above all confusion. In Eliseo Veron’s article on the pertinence of the term ‘code’ Veron distinguishes no less than five uses: (1) code is a language. (2) Code is a set of information which enables a message receiver to determine the equivalent meaning by moving from one system of signs to another, as in Morse code or in information theory. (3) Code in many cases is used to mean a set of constraints which define the nature of any particular sign system. (4) Code involves the signs which speakers of a signifying system use in order to communicate. (5) Code refers to the ‘social’ aspect of a signifying system, the institutional norms which underlie the functioning of the system [17]. From the point of view of this article we should not be misled by the fact that the concept of a code is overexploited, but should limit ourselves to the definition of the legal code as a language that has been set up by signs and sign relations led by the Convention.

  5. In semiotics of law as in speculative rhetoric generally the relationship or the type of the relationship in semiotic methodology is looked for: for example, the text of law or discourse (i.e. a coherent text) refers to the legal code, aesthetic text refers to the explicit or implicit aesthetic or artistic norms, scientific text requires a similar paradigmatic text and ordinary speech requires certain codes that determine verbal and gestural interaction. The recipient of a coded message understands the signs of it only when he knows the certain codes of the convention. For example there is a difference of code in the same concepts like "death" or "right to life" depending on whether they are used for law, medicine, or yellow journalism [17].

  6. Barthes finds that the unity of text does not lie in its origin, but in its adressee, who presents the room, where all the quotations the text is made of meet [5].

  7. At time of submission of this article, the case was renewed in the Supreme Court of Estonia because of the different solution by ECHR. In 30. June 2017 with decision no 3-3-2-1-16 the Supreme Court of Estonia sent the case back to the administrative court for a new hearing. This very recent decision no 3-3-2-1-16 has left out of the scope of this article.

  8. The proportionality test is widely used in several law systems (USA, Civil Law countries, etc.). Estonian law is affected by German proportionality test, but it has established itself in the consistent practice of the Supreme Court. Estonian Constitution Article 11 names three conditions, which must conform to the infringement of the fundamental right. First, any interference must be in conformity with the Constitution. Second, the restriction must be necessary in a democratic society. Third, the interference must not distort the nature of the rights and freedoms restricted [7].

    In this case the Supreme Court concluded that the restriction preventing detainees from accessing the requested internet sites was one of “low intensity”; the Supreme Court gave more weight to the aim sought by that restriction. It considered that permitting detainees extensive use of the internet would increase the likelihood of prison authorities losing control over detainees’ activities, as it could not be completely excluded that via the internet sites in question detainees could use the internet for other, unauthorized purposes. Accordingly, the impugned restriction was in conformity with the Constitution.

  9. Article 44 § 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia provides that everyone has the right to freely obtain information disseminated for public use [25].

  10. See p. 15: “With regard to the novelty of the legal question raised by the application, the general importance of prisoners’ access to the internet as well as the practical and financial implications of granting prisoners access to the internet, the question should, in my view, not have been decided by a Chamber, but by the Grand Chamber (Article 30 of the Convention)”.

  11. See more: Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 126-45, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts), and Donaldson v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56975/09, § 18, 25 January 2011.

  12. Also: interpretation methods, interpretation criteria, interpretation arguments or argument forms (Argumentformen) [20].

References

  1. Aaviksoo, Berit. 2005. Kohtulik aktivism põhiseaduslikkuse järelevalve funktsioonina. Kui aktivistlik on Eesti põhiseaduskohus? Juridica 5: 295–307.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aaviksoo, Berit. 2007. Judicial activism in constitutional review decisions of the supreme court of Estonia. Juridica International 2: 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Atria, Fernando. 2001. On Law and Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Balkin, J. M. 1989–1990. The hodfeldian approach to law and semiotics. University of Miami Law Review 44: 1119–1142.

  5. Barthes, Roland. 2002. Autori surm. Ed. Marek Tamm. (Translated from: Roland Barthes, Euvres completes, Tome I-III. Paris, Seuil, 1993–1995). Varrak: Avatud Eesti Fond.

  6. Eco, Umberto. 1979. Role of the Reader. Exporations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eesti Vabariigi Põhiseadus. Kommenteeritud väljaanne. 2012. (Commented edition of the Constitution of Republic of Estonia) http://www.pohiseadus.ee/eessona/. Accessed 1 January 2017.

  8. Goodrich, Peter, and Yifat Hachamovitch. 1993. Habeas Corpus: A semiotic analysis of common law cartographies. In Approaches to Semiotics 111: Tracing the Semiotic Boundaries of Politics, ed. Pertty Ahonen, 175–201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gorlée, L.Dinda. 2005. Hints and guesses: Legal modes of semio-logical reasoning. Sign Systems Studies 33 (2): 239–272.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jackson, Bernard S. 1990. Legal semiotics and semiotic aspects of jurisprudence. In Prospects of Legal Semiotics, ed. Anne Wagner, Jan M, Broekman, 3–36. Dordrecht, Heidelberg: Springer.

  11. Kevelson, Roberta. Peirce’s Pragmatism. The Medium as Method. On Sign Zero. New York, Washington, D.C./Baltimore, Boston: Peter Lang.

  12. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1955. Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. Justus Buchler. New York: Dover Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Röhl, Klaus F., and Röhl Hans Christian. 2008. Algemeine Rechtslehre. Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rüthers, Bernd. 2005. Rechtstheorie. Grundrisse des Rechts. München: Verlag C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sebeok, Thomas A., and Marcel Danesi. 2000. The Forms of Meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Sebeok, Thomas A. 1986. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, Tome 1 A-M. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tiefenbrun, Susan. 1980. Signs of the Hidden. Semiotic Studies. Great Britain: H. Charlesworth.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tiefenbrun, Susan. 2010. Semiotic definition of “Lawfare”. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43: 29–60.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Verenitš, Vadim. 2014. Semiotic Models of Legal Argumentation. Dissertationes semioticae Universitatis Taruensis, University of Tartu Press, Tartu.

  20. Vogenauer, Stefan. 2001. Die Auslegung von Gesetzen in England und auf dem Kontinent. Band I. Max-Plank-Institut für ausländishes und internationalse Privatrecht. Beiträge zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht 72. Mohr Siebeck.

Case Law

  1. Administrative Law Chamber of the Supreme Court, 08.09.2008 ruling no. 3-3-1-38-08.

  2. The Supreme Court en banc 29.11.2011, judgment no. 3-3-1-22-11.

  3. The Supreme Court en Blanc. 7.12.2009, judgement no 3-3-1-5-09. Available in English: http://www.nc.ee/?id=1149. Accessed 1 January 2017.

  4. ECHR. Application no. 17429/10, 19.01.2016. Available in English: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“docname”:[“kalda”],”documentcollectionid2”:[“GRANDCHAMBER”,”CHAMBER”],”itemid”:[“001-160270“]}. Accessed 1 January 2017.

Acts

  1. The Constitution of the Republic of Estonia - RT 1992, 26, 349. (Entry into force 03.07.1992) Available in English: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/rhvv/act/521052015001/consolide). Accessed 1 January 2017.

  2. Inprisonment Act - RT I, 17.12.2015, 96 (Entry into force 1.06.2008), available in English: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/Riigikogu/act/510062016001/consolide. Accessed 1 January 2017.

  3. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Official text: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf. Accessed 1 January 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor of Comparative Jurisprudence Raul Narits from the School of Law of the University of Tartu, my adviser, PhD student Tyler James Bennett from the Institute of Philosophy and Semiotics of the University of Tartu, and my family.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Tartu, Näituse 20, 50409, Tartu, Estonia

    Liina Reisberg

Authors
  1. Liina Reisberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liina Reisberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The Author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reisberg, L. Gaps in the Law Fulfilled with Meaning: A Semiotic Approach for Decoding Gaps in Law. Int J Semiot Law 30, 697–709 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-017-9521-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-017-9521-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation