In the article there were researched some works of British lawyers published in the period of the middle Ages, the New and the Newest time and devoted to the problems of the reasonability and the effectiveness of a stocktaking of aims and intentions of a legislator in the process of the interpretation. It is marked that the present question has the old history and is urgent in the present time. The majority of investigators admit that the application of a teleological way increases the possibilities of full and exact interpretation of a normative act. Opponents of necessity of a stocktaking of aims and intentions of a legislator mark that not always the present aspects preserve its urgency. It connects with possible changes occurred with the moment of the law’s application in state organs, official politics and ideology. So, the interpreter must rush more not to the understanding of aims of a law but to the sense’s opening containing in the text of a normative act. The position of an author is expressed in the fact not to belittle the importance of a teleological way of a notion to use along with them the other ways of interpretation as well. Exactly such an approach in a maximum degree will promote to the effective interpretation and the law enforcement respectively.
teleological interpretation, interpretation, normative act, aim, intention, legislator, effectiveness, sense
1. Carpentier M. Autorité, intention, innovation Joseph Raz et la théorie de l’interprétation // Klesis. Revue philosophique. 2011. № 21. R. 159.
2. Blackston W. Commentaries of the Law of England. Oxford, 2003. // https:/www.lonang.com. (data obrascheniya: 10.05.2015).
3. Coke E. Reports. London, 1602. Vol. 3. R. 7a.
4. Heydon´s Case. Elizabeth I in the Court of Exchequer. 1584. Easter´s Term, 26
5. Bentham J. Truth versus Ashhurst; or Law as it is Contrasted With What It is Said to Be // The Works of Jeremy Bentham. Vol. V. Edinburg, 1843. R. 233.
6. Buchanan &Co Ltd. v. Babco Forwarding & Shipping Ltd.// 2 Weekly Law Reports. 1977. P. 107, 112.
7. Magor and Mellons v. Newport Corporation// Appeal Sase. 1952. P. 189, 191.
8. Bennion F. Statutory Interpretation. 1990. R. 164-166.
9. A-G of New Zealand v Ortiz//3 All English Reports. 1982. R. 432, 4427.
10. Carter v Bradbeer // 1 Weekly Law Reports. 1975. P. 1204, 1206.
11. Mustill J. in R v Committee of Lloyd's, ex pane Moran // The Times. 1983. 24 June.
12. IRC v Helen Slater Charitable Trust Ltd. 1982. Ch. 49 // Trusts and Estates in Scotland. Haywards Heath. 2013/14. P. 8.16-12.3.
13. Uolker R. Angliyskaya sudebnaya sistema. M., 1980. S. 130.
14. Raz J. Morality as Interpretation //Ethics. 1991.101/2.
15. Raz J. Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford, 2009. R. 298.
