This essay poses the question whether it is possible, given the relationship of a subject and the method of its examination, at present as opposed to the time when Savigny worked, to talk about the same subject, and if it is not, what are the consequences for the interpretation of law. The turbulent history of Europe in the 20th century, marked by the cataclysms of world wars, genocides, expulsions and upheavals, therefore the necessity of new beginnings, jointly with other factors (...) (e.g. technological optimism) resulted not only in the ebbing of influence for religion, morality and tradition, but also in a deconstruction of law. This includes fragmentation, loss of the ability to formulate and interpret the purpose of law, as well as relativization of the traditional ordering principles of law (particularly the non-contradiction condition and contextual consistency, hierarchical structure, relative stability of law and its language). The opening of the texture of law, its deconstruction, creates a new segment of legislation, namely judicial law-making arising from the uncertainty of normative premises. (shrink)