Definitions in Legislation
A Discussion on Definitions, or lack thereof
Written by JayDee
Debt said:
Perhaps not the best example, but it gets the point across. English is a confusing language with a bunch of silly words with multiple interpretations. These could be seen as absolutely harmless, but understanding the meaning of every word is sometimes essential to understanding the structure of the sentence as a whole. This is especially important in a legal court, where precise interpretation of the law is essential in every judgement, and failure to recognize the interpretation of law could cost your career. That is why many countries include a ‘definitions’ clause in their legislation to ensure proper interpretation of the law is carried in legal judgment.
However, some countries choose to exclude the use of definitions in their legal documents. In some cases, countries such as the UK and Australia leave out definitions because they have one large ‘Interpretations Act’ with all legal definitions contained within the one legal piece. Other countries simply choose to remove definitions entirely, deeming them to be unnecessary.
Why some countries have Definitions
The Law Reform Commission from Ireland explains the use of definitions by saying, “definitions are best used to stipulate meaning in an area of marginal uncertainty.” That is, we use definitions in law for the purpose of clarifying the interpretation of legislation where it may be necessary. We use definitions for the purpose of clear interpretation of the intent of the law when it is not readily available based on the current language. Since, especially in the US and UK Court system upon which our Court system is based, the intent of legislation upon its creation is so important, proposals, at least in the US, almost always include definitions preceding the body of the proposal.
When I asked a friend of mine, he has this to say, “Something to keep in mind is that any good law should be written with the assumption the person writing it will die the instant they finish. The idea is that while you're still here and currently in a political position to explain and interpret your law, you might not always be, and any ambiguity can cause some pretty big problems down the road.” The main argument he presented is stated clearly in his first sentence, the idea that you won’t always be around to explain the main idea behind any proposal is something each law writer should look out for. He then goes on to explain his initial statement and why it is so important. Like the Law Reform Commission from Ireland, he justifies the use of definitions as a necessity of clear intent behind the proposal when the interpretation of such legislation becomes necessary. It is especially necessary when the exact same proposal is being interpreted far in the future when you are no longer around to explain its intent.
Why we don’t use definitions
In the real world, countries that don’t use definitions in their legislation usually have a weaker Judicial Branch compared to the Executive and/or Legislative Branch. These would be countries such as France, whose Court system is noticeably weaker than their British neighbors. Unlike UK Courts, the French Court is utilized solely for the assurance of Constitutionality in legislation prior to passage. As such, definitions is not a necessary utility as it is not the power of the Court to pass judgment based on current legislation passed.
That begs the question, why doesn’t Europeia use definitions in its legislation? While some laws in Europeia do include definitions, former Chief Justice Malashaan explained the practice of avoiding legislation as a way of preventing greater confusion by defining an ambiguous word poorly or defining the word incorrectly. “Instead, we typically try and write our laws so they are clear without needing definitions,” he would go on to say in the next paragraph. Their explanation would make it apparent that, given the nature of Europeia’s citizens, most legislators preferred to write clear legislation without the need for definitions.
While definitions in legislation may be confusing, they are most certainly not useless. There are some instances in Europeian legislation where multiple definitions of a single word could lead to potential confusion. Take this example from the Elections Act (2015), “Electoral Panel composed of the Speaker of the Senate, the President of the Republic, and the Office of the Supreme Chancellor, each exercising one vote.” Of course, most of us know what it means, but some may misinterpret “the Office of the Supreme Chancellor” to mean that both Mousebumples and Lethen exercise a single vote within the Electoral Panel. While definition may help some who read through our laws, the attempt at a definition, in this case, would also fulfill the concern stated in the previous paragraph. Where it is clear to most people what the meaning of the clause is, the use of definition would likely cause greater confusion for those attempting to read through and/or interpret our laws.
