The most important arguments in favor of this understanding of legal interpretation are the main arguments against the linguistic-meaning and dispute-resolution understandings. If legal interpretation is to resolve many disputes, and judges are in general bound to follow the law, then (assuming that there often are relevant legal standards) legal interpretation must at least yield the content of the law. On the other hand, theories of legal interpretation do not include components that would be necessary if they were theories of how to resolve disputes generally. Similarly, though the term “legal interpretation” is often used loosely and is sometimes used in a way that encompasses activities such as creating law interstitially, when the different activities necessary to resolve disputes are carefully distinguished, few would classify all of them as part of legal interpretation. For example, it would stretch the term beyond recognition to categorize deciding whether to refuse to follow the law as legal interpretation.