Christian Hiebaum examines the political dimension of legal argumentation. He shows how two prevalent beliefs which seem to contradict one another are, in fact, compatible: the belief that the application of law is a political undertaking, and the belief that those who apply law necessarily act in a truth-oriented manner. This demands a thorough analysis of the interpretation of legal standards on the one hand, and of the concept of common welfare and its role in legal discourse on the other. Overall, the analysis is set up as a deconstruction of Dworkin's distinction between arguments of principle and arguments of policy. In contrast to similar projects, this analysis does not flow into convenient skepticism or relativism.
