The purposive approach instructs judges and officials to interpret a legal text by identifying the purpose or object behind it and choosing the reading that best advances that purpose. It stands in contrast to the literal rule, which gives words their ordinary meaning even when the result is absurd, and the mischief rule, a narrower common-law ancestor from Heydon's Case (1584) that asks what defect in the prior law the statute was meant to cure.
In the United Kingdom, the purposive approach became dominant after accession to the European Communities in 1973, because EU law itself is interpreted teleologically by the Court of Justice. Lord Denning championed the method in cases such as Bulmer v Bollinger (1974), and the House of Lords formalised a purposive reading of domestic tax statutes in Pepper v Hart (1992), which also permitted limited reference to Hansard to identify legislative intent.
In international law, the purposive approach is codified in Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), which requires treaties to be interpreted "in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose." Tribunals such as the ICJ, WTO Appellate Body, and ECtHR routinely cite this rule. The European Court of Human Rights extends the idea further through its "living instrument" doctrine, articulated in Tyrer v United Kingdom (1978).
Critics argue the approach gives judges excessive discretion and risks substituting judicial preference for legislative text. Textualists, particularly in the United States, prefer to anchor interpretation in the enacted words. Supporters reply that purpose-based reading prevents drafters' oversights from frustrating obvious policy goals and is essential where statutes and treaties use broad or evolving language.
For MUN delegates, invoking object and purpose is often the strongest argument when a treaty's text is silent or ambiguous on a novel issue.
Example
In *Pepper v Hart* (1992), the UK House of Lords used a purposive approach to interpret the Finance Act 1976, holding that teachers' children receiving discounted school fees should be taxed only on the marginal cost to the school.
Frequently asked questions
Textualism confines interpretation to the ordinary meaning of the enacted words; the purposive approach allows courts to look beyond the text to the goal the legislature or treaty drafters sought to achieve.
Keep learning