Abstract

The process of applying the law tends to oscillate between two modes: the subsumption under „clear“ rules on the one hand and the interpretative concretisation of vague and abstract blanket clauses on the other. Legal arguments therefore refer both to the semantic content of rules and to legal self-evidence. Consequently the application of law can effectively be influenced not only through new legislation, but also through the introduction of new interpreters bringing with them a different set of preconceptions, and thus differing interpretations of the law. The traditional balance between these two models of control is endangered in multicultural societies since these societies are characterised by conflicting concepts of justice. An automated application of law, aspired to by many legal scholars, could dispense legal practice from such conflicting prejudices. The price for that gain, however, would likely be a loss of the rule of law in the general understanding.