“Preunderstanding” is the core of the theoretical framework developed by legal hermeneutics.
Legal interpretation is necessary guided by the know-how, the presuppositions and the
attitudes of the interpreter. But if this is the case, how can we distinguish between a legitimate
and a not legitimate preunderstanding, and also between a good and a bad interpretation?
The paper tries to adress this question analyzing the structure of preunderstanding
from the point of view of both legal hermeneutics and philosophical hermeneutics. The paper
argues, in particular, that the preunderstanding of the judge can be treated as legitimate if
corresponding to the “real thing” (Sache selbst) regulated by the text. Such a criterion can be
articulated methodologically by means of an inferential approach to conceptual content and
legal process.
