Abstract

This article offers a critical assessment of a legal method of applying law traditionally referred to as formalism. By and large, formalism rigidly follows the letter of the law, even if the outcome is unjust or at odds with common sense. Although this is widely believed to be in line with the idea of positive law, i.e. that instituted by human beings, it is possible to challenge formalism by manifesting its incompatibility with core ideas of legal positivism and the rule of law. At the same time, an alternative method for the application of law is available, one that does justice to those core ideas. This non-formalistic method is based on sematic analysis of legal text. Similarly to formalism, it effectively secures the predictability and stability of law while limiting the influence of an individual’s preferences on the outcome of the interpretive process.