The article explores the role of using specialized terminology, detailed elaboration, and systematic presentation of normative material as means of ensuring the clarity of legal norms in the law-making process. The author proceeds from the position that clarity is the most appropriate designation for the characteristic of legal norms that ensures the predictability of law enforcement. Predictability, in turn, is viewed as a necessary condition for the implementation of the principle of legal certainty. Based on the conducted analysis, it is established that the terms precision and unambiguity are not suitable for denoting the respective property of a legal norm from the standpoint of legal technique, as they either do not allow for the required degree of variability or do not guarantee predictability. Clarity, on the other hand, is a flexible category that can be applied at the necessary level between generality and precision, taking into account the flexibility of legislation and the specific nature of legal regulation in various types of social relations. The article reveals the specific features of each examined method: specialized terminology ensures the clarity of legal norms through the definition of terms and their consistent use in legal acts; detailed elaboration ensures clarity by disclosing the regulatory content of norms, which helps reduce uncertainty among legal subjects regarding the potential consequences of applying such norms; systematic presentation allows for the organization of normative material and ensures the internal logic of legal sources at all levels. It is demonstrated that the combination of these means makes it possible to achieve an optimal level of clarity in legal norms, which in turn serves as a guarantee of an adequate level of legal certainty. In the course of the analysis, the author also provides examples of successful detailing of legal norms in the Civil and Family Codes of Ukraine and distinguishes between the use of specialized terminology and detailed elaboration as tools for ensuring clarity. The article concludes that the comprehensive use of these methods, together with the systematic presentation of normative material, is advisable in the law-making process to improve the quality of legislation.
Н.В. Степаненко (Thu,) studied this question.