The Genoa School on Legal Interpretation, for some, or Genoese Legal Realism, for others, is an Italian theoretical current that sheds light on a series of problems involving legal interpretation; especially those linked to the interpreter s discretion when interpreting a normative document. This work reconstructs the most consistent interpretive legal problems that generated the School s concerns, and presents the main reflections of the authors linked to it. Its main foundations are: the skeptical attitude towards legal interpretation and the analytical consequences: separation between text and norm and the need for depoliticization of the judges. In this work, the main arguments that mark a block of positions of the authors of the School, that remain with criticisms and that mark the Genoese thought are presented. These are: the creation of a meta-theoretical and meta-jurisprudential model of law analysis; the clarification of the discussions between legal formalism and interpretive skepticism; criticisms of moral objectivism; the analytical separation between text and standard; critical reflection on the traditional model of separation of powers and the notions and concepts of system, decision, weighting and discretion as limitations of the politicization of the judiciary.