In this article we investigate the relationship between legal translation and legal interpretation. The common wisdom is that these activities are closely related, but the nature of that relationship remains disputable. We adopt the perspective of legal theory—as opposed to the perspective of translation studies—which seems to be underrepresented in the literature of the subject. We start with distinguishing between the two notions of legal interpretation: the wide sense (interpretation as understanding) and the narrow sense (interpretation as problem solving). We argue that the relationship between legal translation and legal interpretation changes significantly depending on the notion of legal interpretation that is assumed. The wide sense is often assumed by translation scholars and it renders legal interpretation as a necessary prerequisite for legal translation. Jurists, on the other hand, usually assume the narrow sense which renders legal interpretation and legal translation as two distinct activities with some shared features. We then focus on four issues of legal interpretation in the narrow sense: the types of legal interpretive problems, the creation of legal interpretive problems, the methods of legal interpretation, the resolution of legal interpretive problems. We conclude with a detailed comparison of legal translation and legal interpretation in the context of those four issues.

THE ROLE OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN LEGAL ORDERInformation originating from legislative process plays a significant role in the system of law. Not only in the process of interpretation of legal texts, but also in many other areas. The presented article describes different possibilities of usage of legislative history. The aforementioned requires good knowledge of the legislative process itself, as well as the ability to distinguish reliable information from information that cannot be regarded as reliable.

Przedmiotem opracowania przygotowanego 100 rocznicę urodzin Profesora Kazimierza Opałka jest problematyka praworządności w opublikowanych przezeń pracach. W toku prowadzonych rozważań poddano analizie charakterystyki praworządności, podziały praworządności oraz problem gwarancji praworządności, tak jak one były rozumiane przez Opałka. Szczególną uwagę zwrócono na podjęty przezeń problem ograniczenia konstytucyjnych praw i wolności na mocy przepisów rangi ustawowej. Nadto porównano stanowisko teoretycznoprawne Kazimierza Opałka z poglądami Józefa Nowackiego. Podkreślono, że w pracach tych autorów można znaleźć zarówno miejsca wspólne, ale i pewne istotne różnice. Na zakończenie wskazano, że Opałek już w latach pięćdziesiątych XX w., podejmując problem sporu o pojęcie praworządności, odnosił prowadzone analizy do koncepcji niemieckich oraz angielskich. Przeprowadzone przezeń analizy pojęciowe pomimo upływu czasu nie straciły swojej aktualności, a przyszłe pokolenia naukowców będą przez lata do nich powracać.

The purpose of this text is to present an outline of the dialogical concept of legal interpretation. It involves the need to establish the relationship between the legislature and courts. In the normative dimension, this concept includes an analysis of assumptions about the mutual roles of the legislature and courts in determining the substance of the law. In the descriptive dimension, the authors present tools that enable communication between the legislature and courts in order to improve the interpretation process. The authors describe the requirements for communication between courts and the legislature, and refer to existing solutions in Poland and the United States. In the text the importance of this issue is only signaled, but the authors believe that it is worth further research.