Komplexität und Normenklarheit - oder: Gesetze sind für Juristen gemacht (German) [Complexity and Normative Clarity - Or: Legal Statutes are Made for Lawyers]

E. Towfigh
{"title":"Komplexität und Normenklarheit - oder: Gesetze sind für Juristen gemacht (German) [Complexity and Normative Clarity - Or: Legal Statutes are Made for Lawyers]","authors":"E. Towfigh","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1314196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper deals with the complexity of legal norms and the instrument the German constitutional law establishes to control it, namely the requirement of normative clarity. First, I introduce a definition of complexity of written legal norms, conceptualized by their density (number of items to be considered) and interdependencies (within a norm and of different norms), thus focussing on the complexity of the underlying rule, rather than its language. Complexity is then described as a primarily cognitive problem, with reflexes on the time and monetary scales. The view taken here is therefore a subjective one, setting out from the individual who tries to understand a legal text. The technicality of a norm can reduce complexity for those trained in the law, and at the same time raise it for laypeople. Legal doctrine, too, aims at reinforcing consistence and reducing complexity. The requirement of normative clarity, however, is not a means to reduce complexity, but only to control it. Normative clarity is held to be founded in the principle of the separation of powers, and its measure is the executability of the law. Against concurrent views, I therefore argue that it is not the norm's addressee who must understand the norm, but rather lawyers. Only then can the problem of legal complexity be handled in systems that rely heavily on statutory law. The argument is supported by theoretical, behavioural and doctrinal reasons.","PeriodicalId":297504,"journal":{"name":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legislation & Statutory Interpretation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1314196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The paper deals with the complexity of legal norms and the instrument the German constitutional law establishes to control it, namely the requirement of normative clarity. First, I introduce a definition of complexity of written legal norms, conceptualized by their density (number of items to be considered) and interdependencies (within a norm and of different norms), thus focussing on the complexity of the underlying rule, rather than its language. Complexity is then described as a primarily cognitive problem, with reflexes on the time and monetary scales. The view taken here is therefore a subjective one, setting out from the individual who tries to understand a legal text. The technicality of a norm can reduce complexity for those trained in the law, and at the same time raise it for laypeople. Legal doctrine, too, aims at reinforcing consistence and reducing complexity. The requirement of normative clarity, however, is not a means to reduce complexity, but only to control it. Normative clarity is held to be founded in the principle of the separation of powers, and its measure is the executability of the law. Against concurrent views, I therefore argue that it is not the norm's addressee who must understand the norm, but rather lawyers. Only then can the problem of legal complexity be handled in systems that rely heavily on statutory law. The argument is supported by theoretical, behavioural and doctrinal reasons.
错综复杂、规范规范或者是法律为律师制定的。
本文讨论了法律规范的复杂性以及德国宪法为控制它而建立的工具,即规范清晰度的要求。首先,我介绍了书面法律规范复杂性的定义,通过它们的密度(要考虑的项目数量)和相互依赖性(在一个规范和不同的规范内)来概念化,从而关注潜在规则的复杂性,而不是其语言。然后,复杂性被描述为一个主要的认知问题,具有时间和金钱尺度的反射。因此,这里所采取的观点是主观的,是从试图理解法律文本的个人出发的。规范的技术性可以减少那些受过法律训练的人的复杂性,同时提高外行人的复杂性。法律原则也旨在加强一致性和减少复杂性。然而,规范明确性的要求并不是减少复杂性的一种手段,而只是为了控制复杂性。规范性明确性被认为建立在三权分立原则的基础上,其衡量标准是法律的可执行性。因此,与同时存在的观点相反,我认为必须理解规范的不是规范的接受者,而是律师。只有这样,法律复杂性的问题才能在严重依赖成文法的制度中得到处理。这一论点得到了理论、行为和教义理由的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信