Advertisement

Misconceptions in Legislative Quality: An Enlightened Approach to the Drafting of Legislation

  • Helen XanthakiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Legisprudence Library book series (LEGIS, volume 5)

Abstract

The chapter summarises traditional teachings in legislative drafting, and identifies five misconceptions. Misconception 1: drafting conventions always lead to quality. But the phronetic nature of drafting prevents nomoteleia of drafting conventions. Misconception 2: Legislative quality rests in a vacuum. But the interconnectivity between policy, law, and legislative expression render their interdependence profound and critical. Misconception 3: legislative quality is undefinable. But effectiveness is a prominent definition of legislative quality. Misconception 4: effectiveness always leads to legislative quality. But legislation suffers from inherent limits: its interconnection and reliance to regulation, the limits of legislation as written communication, and the intrinsic aversion of users to legislative texts. Misconception 5: in view of the unsurpassable limits of legislative texts, legislative quality should not be pursued further. But there is hope ahead, such as the layered structure of legislative texts, the use of image in legislative texts, and the restructuring of the statute book as a whole.

Keywords

Effectiveness Phronetic legislative drafting Legislative quality Misconceptions 

References

  1. Aristotle (1926) Nicomachean ethics. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennion F (1990) Bennion on statute law. Longman McMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergeron R (1999) Rules of legislative drafting – letters to Ukrainian drafters. Department of Justice Canada and Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, KievGoogle Scholar
  4. Chamberlain JP (1931) Legislative drafting and law enforcement. Am Labor Legis Rev 21:235–243Google Scholar
  5. Crabbe VCRAC (1998) Legislative drafting. Cavendish Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Cracknell R, Clements R (2012) Acts and Statutory Instruments: the volume of UK legislation 1950 to 2012. House of Commons Standard Note SN/SG/2911, 15 November 2012Google Scholar
  7. Cranston R (1978/1979) Reform through legislation: the dimension of legislative technique. Northwest Univ Law Rev 73(5):873–908Google Scholar
  8. Engle E (2008) Aristotle, law and justice: the tragic hero. Northern Kentucky Law Rev 35:1–18Google Scholar
  9. Eskridge W Jr (1990) Gadamer/Statutory interpretation. Columbia Law Rev 90:635–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flückiger A (2004) Régulation, dérégulation, autorégulation: l’émergence des actes étatiques non obligatoires. Revue de droit suisse 123:159–303Google Scholar
  11. Flückiger A (2007) L’évaluation législative ou comment mesurer lefficacité des lois. Revue européenne des sciences sociales XLV-138:83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jenkins I (1981) Social order and the limits of the law: a theoretical essay. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Mader L (2001) Evaluating the effect: a contribution to the quality of legislation. Statute Law Rev 22:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mousmouti M (2012) Operationalising quality of legislation through the effectiveness test. Legisprudence 6(2):191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Müller G, Uhlmann F (2013) Elemente einer Rechtssetzungslehre. Schulthess, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  17. New Zealand Law Commission (1996) Legislative manual: structure and style (New Zealand Law Commission Report No 35). Law Commission, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Nutting C (1955) Legislative drafting: a review. Am Bar Assoc J 41:76–77Google Scholar
  19. OECD (2002) Regulatory policies in OECD countries: from interventionism to regulatory governance. OECD, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD (2006) Alternatives to traditional regulation (Report). OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Office of Parliamentary Counsel (2010) Drafting guidance. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk and http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/427772/drafting-guidance-101002.pdf (2 October 2010)
  22. Renton Committee (1975) Report on the preparation of legislation (Cmnd 6035). Cabinet Offices, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Rideout C (2008) Storytelling, narrative rationality, and legal persuasion. Leg Writ - J Leg Writ Inst 14:53–86Google Scholar
  24. Rogers H (2015) Good law: how can the design of Bills and Acts help? In: Designing democracy: how designers are changing democracy – spaces and processes, An Inquiry of the Design Commission: http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apdig/sites/site_apdig/files/report/497/fieldreportdownload/designingdemocracyinquiry.pdf (London: Design Commission, March 2015)
  25. Rose A (1959) Sociological factors in the effectiveness of proposed legislative remedies. J Leg Educ 11:470–481Google Scholar
  26. Scharffs BG (2001) Law as craft. Vanderbilt Law Rev 54(6):2243–2348Google Scholar
  27. Schram SF, Caterino B (2006) Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Snyder F (1993) The effectiveness of European Community Law: institutions, processes, tools and techniques. Mod Law Rev 56:19–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Staem N (2006) Governance, democracy and evaluation. Evaluation 12(7):7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stefanou C (2008) Drafters, drafting, and the policy process. In: Stefanou C, Xanthaki H (eds) Drafting legislation: a modern approach – in Memoriam of Sir William Dale. Ashgate-Dartmouth, Aldershot, pp 321–332Google Scholar
  31. Teubner G (1992) Regulatory law: chronicle of a death foretold. Soc Leg Stud 1:451–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thring H (Lord) (1902) Practical legislation. The composition and language of acts of parliament and business documents. G. N. Morang & Co./Little, Brown & Co., Toronto and BostonGoogle Scholar
  33. Timmermans C (1997) How can one improve the quality of community legislation? Common Market Law Rev 34:1229–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Voermans W (2009) Concern about the quality of EU legislation: what kind of problem, by what kind of standards? Erasmus Law Rev 2(1):59–95Google Scholar
  35. Weatherhill S (2007) The challenge of better regulation. In: Weatherhill S (ed) Better regulation. Hart, Oxford and Portland, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  36. Xanthaki H (2008) On transferability of legislative solutions: the functionality test. In: Stefanou C, Xanthaki H (eds) Drafting legislation: a modern approach – in Memoriam of Sir William Dale. Ashgate-Dartmouth, Aldershot, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  37. Xanthaki H (2010) Drafting manuals and quality in legislation: positive contribution towards certainty in the law or impediment to the necessity for dynamism of rules? Legisprudence 4:111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xanthaki H (2011a) Duncan Berry: a true visionary of training in legislative drafting. Loophole 18:18–26Google Scholar
  39. Xanthaki H (2011b) Quality of legislation: an achievable universal concept or a utopian pursuit? In: de Almeida MT (ed) Quality of legislation. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 75–85Google Scholar
  40. Xanthaki H (2013a) Thornton’s legislative drafting. Bloomsbury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Xanthaki H (2013b) The regulatory reform agenda and modern innovations in drafting styles. In: Mader L (ed) Regulatory reform. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 128–143Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCL Faculty of Laws, University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations