Language and style of a legal act: analysis of the Law of Ukraine «On lawmaking»

Abstract

The article examines the peculiarities of language and style of a legal act in the context of studying Article 35 of the Law of Ukraine «On Lawmaking». It is determined that compliance by public authorities and local self-government bodies with the basic requirements for drafting and adopting regulatory legal acts is an integral part of an effective law- making process in Ukraine. In our opinion, the requirements to the language and style of a legal act are also important, since lawyers-drafters should have additional knowledge in this area, in particular, the linguistic features of writing legal norms. The author`s conclude that the issue of language aspects of legal drafting is relevant because the use of clearly defined and prescribed legal terms not only avoids ambiguity and different understandings, but also ensures the accuracy and unambiguity of the law’s interpretation. Therefore, a law should be written in a language that is understandable to everyone, but it should also use legal terminology to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations. It is noted that the Law of Ukraine «On Lawmaking» in Article 35 defines the basic rules of text presentation and peculiarities of the style of a legal act. However, for lawyers, the linguistic aspects of writing a legal provision are not always clear, so it is necessary to analyse in more detail the requirements of the law regarding the language of a legal document and to highlight the general principles of using terms and linguistic rules in the legal sphere. The author`s identify problems in the implementation of the provisions of Article 34 of the Law, in particular: 1) the lack of developed and adopted standards of Ukrainian legal terminology, which creates difficulties in the construction of legal norms; 2) the absence of a separate linguistic department which would deal with proofreading of draft legal documents, both in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and in other state and non-state structures; 3) the absence of a Unified Glossary of Legal Terms, which also affects terminological consistency in the drafting of a legal document.