Legal Interpretation Under The Perspective Of Judicial Formalism

In a country under the rule of law, the judges, of course, have legal interpretation. However, making legal interpretation should follow the approach of essence of socialism or formalism, which has always been debated between the scholars. Scholars chose formalism of legal interpretation for legal concepts and judges syllogism deductive logic before. They often argue that law is a self-sufficient, perfect regulation system, and judges act as a completely neutral “vending machines”, which has been sharp criticism by the “rebel formalism” movement represented by legal realism in the 20 th. The objectors claim legal certainty and logical neutral referee of formalism are imaginary myths, which is mechanical, no vitality, no effect for social change and do not reflect the real process of the referee. Since legal formalism suffered many questioned and descend into a derogatory term. Legal formalism itself is not wrong, and the problem lies in the defense of scholars. Concept system and logic inference are just one aspect of reasons. We can come to the conclusion that adhering to the formalism legal interpretation methods, based on the analysis and investigation of other aspects. This article mainly analyses the present situation of judicial, formalism according with the requirement of the present judicial practice and rule of law. The experience analysis does not involve high-level theory, and need not to transplant western value idea as the premise. Scholars with different academic ideas may support the view in this paper because of the reason on the experience. On the one hand, strictly abide by the literal meaning of the text and on the other hand, accurately use trial rules, to circumvent the law of the fuzzy zone, avoiding a substantive judicial interpretation, to improve coordination, consistency, and form of the operation of the judicial system.