Norms as meanings that are sentences: three problems

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to show three problems that might arise from the idea that norms, intended as meanings of provisions, are not ontologically distinct from provisions. The first problem regards the definition of synonymous provisions as provisions (i.e., sentences found in sources of law) that express the same norm. The second problem regards the notion of interpretation intended as the activity that makes it possible for one to transition from one provision to one norm. The third and last problem regards the idea of vagueness of norms, if vagueness is characterized as involving sense and reference of certain linguistic expressions.