In US society of Legislation Studies, theories of Statutory Interpretation has developed into three basic approaches. They are intentionalist theories, textualist theories, and dynamic theories. According to intentionalist theories, statutory meaning should be governed by legislative intent. They emphasize legislative intent as the object of statutory interpretation. A important reason why statutes ought to be obeyed is that they are directives from the legislature, representative organ of the People. Therefore Intentionalist theories are well harmonized with our democracy system. But they have a several weak points. First there are problems of aggregation : By what source we reach the goal, legislative intent. Second, there are problems of attribution : Whose intention is the most pivotal legislator's ? Also, Intentionalist theories are subject to the problem of changed circumstances. Reader of Text is too far from the Writer, legislators. According to textualist theories, statutory meaning should be governed by textual meaning. They suggest that interpreters should pay heed to the plain meaning of the statutory text. They say that the statutory text is the best evidence of legislative intent. Especially, New Textualists insist that judges should not consult the legislative history of a statute. They say legislative history like that is not the law, according to the Article I Section 7 of the Constitution. Textualist theories are well harmonized with our rule of law principle. But they have a several weak points. First they misunderstand the meaning of separation of power. The Framers of US constitution believe that courts respond to unjust and partial law to protect the citizen's rights in the severity of the law. Secondly textualist theories can sever the connection between the rule of law and democracy unsuspectedly to arrive at law without mind or spirit. According to dynamic theories, statutory meaning should be governed by a more dynamic, pragmatic assessment of institutional, textual, and contextual factors. Best answer theories, pragmatic theory, and critical theory are consist of dynamic theories. Especially Critical theory is typically deconstructive but can be reconstructive as well.
오늘날 대륙법계 국가는 물론 영미법계 국가에서도 제정법의 중요성이 점증하고 있음에도 불구하고 그동안 법학의 주된 관심은 해석법학에 머무르고 있는 것이 현실이다. 같은 맥락에서 법률전문가들도 한결 같이 법의 해석·적용에만 천착하고 있을 뿐이며 해석·적용의 전제가 되는 입법 자체에 대하여 관심과 소양을 가지고 있는 전문가는 찾아보기 힘든 실정이다. 국민의 여론을 충실히 반영하면서도 형평성과 체계성·조화성 등을 고루 갖추어 헌법과 입법원칙에 부합하는 입법이 적시에 이루어진다면 불필요한 법적 분쟁을 예방하고 국민의 법 생활을 윤택하게 하며 법치주의의 성공적인 구현에 크게 기여할 수 있을 것이다. 입법학회는 이러한 전제 하에 올바른 입법을 위한 이론적 토대를 마련하기 위한 학문적 탐구를 진행하고자 함.