Article page

Article information

Article`s title

Criticism of the Theory of Simple Legal Language

Authors

A. Shepelyov 1

Volume

4 (2023)

Keywords

state, citizens, legislation, lawyer, legal language, language.

Abstract

The problem of simplifying legal language is considered. The theory of the simplified language has many supporters who justify their positions by the fact that laws are addressed and studied not only by professional lawyers, but also by citizens; this fact should be taken into account when preparing legislative acts and, accordingly, the text of laws should be clear to everyone, who is reading it. The author points out that the legislation is addressed to the state, and not to the citizen, a group of citizens or the entire population, whose behavior it determines. An ordinary citizen, as a rule, does not read a single piece of legislation throughout his/her entire life, and a significant number of citizens do not read even a small part of legal text. The author especially notes that given the approach to the addressee of the legislation, the focus on simplifying the legal language becomes meaningless and even harmful for the entire legal system. It is impossible to create legislation using terms and terminological phrases that are understandable to all citizens, since they are not addressed to them. The use of simplified legal language in lawmaking distorts the essence of regulations. The author consistently examines the common provisions of the theory of simplified legal language and reasonably subjects them to critical analysis. The paper concludes that thoughtless submission to the simplified language rules and a focus on the accessibility of laws for any reader leads to neglect of the essence of regulations and other legal documents for the sake of their form.

How to Cite this article

Шепелёв А. Н. Критика теории простого юридического языка // Право: история и современность. 2023. Т. 7, № 4. С. 408 – 414. doi: 10.17277/pravo.2023.04. pp.408-414

Download

(всего загрузок:157)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17277/pravo.2023.04.pp.408-414

🗏

408-414

Views:

109