Interpretation, Inclusiveness, and Ambiguity: A Critique of Rule Design in Modern Legal System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/iccle.v7i3.35150Keywords:
Legal rules, Modern legal system, Regulatory design, LawmakingAbstract
This paper analyzes three critical concerns in the formulation of contemporary legal regulations: the propensity for over- or under-inclusiveness, ambiguity in application, and interpretive difficulties. This study utilizes a normative-doctrinal legal methodology within an interdisciplinary framework, incorporating jurisprudence, legal linguistics, and regulatory theory, to argue that rules function not solely as normative instruments but as socio-linguistic constructs shaped by power dynamics and interpretive communities. The intrinsic abstraction and prescriptive characteristics of legal language led to ambiguity and practical uncertainty. This paper challenges the formalistic assumptions inherent in traditional rule-making through a conceptual examination of the difference between rules and standards and a multidimensional exploration of rule typologies, including legal status, language structure, and normative power. The research moreover suggests strategic methods to enhance regulatory efficacy and flexibility, including the formation of interpretative communities and the implementation of goal-oriented regulatory frameworks. The findings seek to enhance the development of regulatory systems that are contextually adaptive and normatively consistent, providing insights for improved legal rule formulation in evolving social contexts.
References
Aguirre, Ricardo Marquisio. “La Normatividad Como Objeto: Doctrina, Teoría, Metateoría.” Anuario Del Área Socio-Jurídica 13, no. 1 (2021): 29. https://doi.org/10.26668/1688-5465_anuariosociojuridico/2021.v13i1.7448.
Ahmad, Jamaluddin. “The Behavior Of Bureaucracy in Formulation Annual Government Planning Process.” Journal of Public Administration and Governance 3, no. 3 (2013): 108. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v3i3.4383.
Arazim, Pavel. “Rules in Motion: Rule-Following with Bergson and Wittgenstein.” Continental Philosophy Review 58, no. 2 (2025): 247–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-025-09693-3.
Baldwin, Robert. “Why Rules Don ’ t Work The Dimensions of Rules.” Review Literature And Arts Of The Americas 53, no. 3 (2011): 321–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1990.tb01815.x.
Baldwin, Robert, Martin Cave, and Martin Lodge. Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice. Second Edi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Bardach, Eugene, and Robert A. Kagan. Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. 1st ed. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Ben‑Shahar, Omri, and Ariel Porat. Personalized Law: Different Rules for Different People. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190949473.001.0001.
Berkel, Hanna, Christian Estmann, and John Rand. “Local Governance Quality and Law Compliance: The Case of Mozambican Firms.” World Development 157 (2022): 105942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105942.
Black, Julia. “Critical Reflections on Regulation.” Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 4 (2002): 10–20. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35985/1/Disspaper4-1.pdf.
Brummer, Chris, Yesha Yadav, and David Zaring. “Regulation By Enforcement.” Southern California Law Review 96, no. 6 (2023): 1297–1339. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4405036#.
Carlsson, Vanja. “Legal Certainty in Automated Decision-Making in Welfare Services.” Public Policy and Administration 40, no. 2 (2023): 302–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231202334.
Condon, Mary, and Poonam Puri. “The Role of Compliance in Securities Regulatory Enforcement The Role of Compliance in Securities Regulatory Enforcement.” Commissioned by the Task Force to Modernize Securities Legislation in Canada. Toronto, 2006. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/reports%0ARepository.
Daly, Paul. “How Binding Are Binding Guidelines? An Analytical Framework.” Canadian Public Administration 66, no. 2 (2023): 211–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12519.
Diver, Colin S. “The Optimal Precision of Administrative Rules.” The Yale Law Journal 93, no. 1 (1983): 65. https://doi.org/10.2307/796245.
Dworkin, Ronald. Law’s Empire. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1986.
Effron, Robin. “Reason Giving and Rule Making in Procedural Law.” Alabama Law Review 65, no. 683 (2014): 40–45. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty.
Ellemers, Naomi. Morality and the Regulation of Social Behavior: Groups as Moral Anchors. London: Routledge, 2017. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315661322.
Feka, Mikhael, Pujiyono, R. B. Sularto, and J. T. Pareke. “Navigating the Legal Minefield: The Impact of Articles 27A and 27B of Indonesia’s EIT Law on Freedom of Expression and the Path to Legal Reform.” Journal of Law and Legal Reform 6, no. 1 (2025): 265–304. https://doi.org/10.15294/jllr.v6i1.19116.
Fiala, Lenka, and Martin Husovec. “Using Experimental Evidence to Improve Delegated Enforcement.” International Review of Law and Economics 71 (2022): 106079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2022.106079.
Fox, Jonathan, Rachel Sullivan Robinson, and Naomi Hossain. “Pathways towards Power Shifts: State-Society Synergy.” World Development 172, no. September (2023): 106346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106346.
Fuller, Lon L. The Morality of Law. Revised Ed. Virginia: Yale University Press, 1969.
Gadamer, Hans-George. Truth and Method. Second Rev. London: Continuum, 2004.
Giudice, Michael. The Normativity of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009209854.
Goodrich, Peter. Legal Discourse: Studies in Linguistics, Rhetoric and Legal Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08818-8.
Gries, Stefan Th, and Tammy Gales. “Talking across the Interdisciplinary Aisle: A Guide for Legal and Corpus-Linguistic Scholars and Practitioners.” Applied Corpus Linguistics 4, no. 1 (2024): 100086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2024.100086.
Grossmann, Igor, Richard P. Eibach, Jacklyn Koyama, and Qaisar B. Sahi. “Folk Standards of Sound Judgment: Rationality versus Reasonableness.” Science Advances 6, no. 2 (2020): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz0289.
Guitton, Clement, Reto Gubelmann, Ghassen Karray, Simon Mayer, and Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux. “Identifying Open-Texture in Regulations Using LLMs.” Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-025-09450-0.
Halford, Eric. “On the Decision-Making Framework for Policing: A Proposal for Improving Police Decision-Making.” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 79, no. September (2024): 100702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100702.
Hansen, Susanne Therese. “Taking Ambiguity Seriously: Explaining the Indeterminacy of the European Union Conventional Arms Export Control Regime.” European Journal of International Relations 22, no. 1 (2016): 192–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115584086.
Hart, H. L. A. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Ireland, Derek. “Behavioral Economics, Regulatory Compliance and Performance, and the Compliance Continuum.” Toronto, 2024. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4952636.
Jr, Oliver Wendell Holmes. “The Path of the Law.” Harvard Law Review 457, no. 10 (1987): 194–96. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203077702-16.
Khaitan, Tarunabh, and Sandy Steel. “Theorizing Areas of Law: A Taxonomy of Special Jurisprudence.” Legal Theory 28, no. 4 (2022): 325–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325222000192.
Köpcke, Maris. Legal Validity: The Fabric of Justice. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2020.
Kutz, Christopher L. “Just Disagreement : Indeterminacy and Rationality in the Rule of Law.” The Yale Law Journal 103, no. 997 (1990): 998. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/8806/39_103YaleLJ997_January1994_.pdf?sequence=2.
Lin, Feng. “The Two Philosophical Thoughts of Pluralism–Hegel and Wittgenstein’s Reflections on Pluralism.” Futurity Philosophy 3, no. 1 (2024): 4–22. https://doi.org/10.57125/fp.2024.03.30.01.
Mcbarnet, Doreen, and Christopher J Whelan. “Creative Compliance and the Defeat of Legal Control: The Magic of the Orphan Subsidiary.” Edited by Keith Hawkins. The Human Face Of Law: Essays in Honour of Donald Harris. Oxford: Oxford University Press, March 27, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198262473.003.0009.
Mcleod, Ian. “Issue 3 SYMPOSIUM: Creating and Interpreting Law in a Multilingual Environmnent Article 5 2004 Literal and Purposive Techniques of Legislative Interpretation: Some European Community and English Common Law Perspective, 29 Brook.” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 29, no. 3 (2004). https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil.
Medeuov, Darkhan, Kamilla Rodionova, Zhaxylyk Sabitov, and Adil Rodionov. “Negotiating Science Funding: The Interplay of Merit, Bias, and Administrative Discretion in Grant Allocation in Kazakhstan.” PLoS ONE 20, no. 5 May (2025): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318875.
Murtadho, Nazhif Ali, Reni Andreyani, Ryszhard Ken Sakti, Nizar Rahmatullah, Yusya Rugaya Salsabilah, and Suleman Watae. “Structure and Classification of Legal Norms: Institutional Challenges in Law Making.” Indonesian Journal of Administrative Law and Local Government 1, no. 01 (2024): 391–95. https://doi.org/10.26740/ijalgov.v1i01.35853.
Özdamar, Özgür, and Evgeniia Shahin. “Consequences of Economic Sanctions: The State of the Art and Paths Forward.” International Studies Review 23, no. 4 (2021): 1646–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab029.
Pildes, Richard H. “Forms of Formalism.” University of Chicago Law Review 66, no. 3 (1999): 607. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600419.
Posner, Richard A. Economic Analysis of Law. 3rd ed. New York: Little Brown and Company, 1986.
Prasetyo, Yogi. “Social Reality as Legal Authenticity (Criticism of Bad Positive Laws in Legislation).” Fiat Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 15, no. 3 (2021): 255–68. https://doi.org/10.25041/fiatjustisia.v15no3.2194.
Rahman, Shibaab, Prue Burns, Julie Wolfram Cox, and Quamrul Alam. “Exercising Bureaucratic Discretion through Selective Bridging: A Response to Institutional Complexity in Bangladesh.” Public Administration and Development 44, no. 2 (2024): 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2036.
Rahmat, Ahmad Ariawan. “Legal Policy in the Formation of the Omnibus Law on Job Creation in Indonesia.” Inaugural Hybrid International Conference on Law and Social Sciences 2, no. 2 (2022): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol30.iss2.art1.3.
Ramsauer, Laurenz. “The Efficacy Problem.” Legal Theory 30, no. 4 (2024): 255–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325225000035.
Raz, Joseph. Practical Reason and Norms. Oxford University Press, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780198268345.001.0001.
Roehl, Ulrik, and Joep Crompvoets. Inside Algorithmic Bureaucracy: Disentangling Automated Decision-Making and Good Administration. Public Policy and Administration, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231197801.
Ruiz-Tagle, Samuel. “From Discretion To Expert Judgement: Recasting Sedimented Concepts in Administrative Law.” Cambridge Law Journal 83, no. November (2024): 549–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197324000473.
Schauer, Frederick. Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Short, Jodi L. “The Politics of Regulatory Enforcement and Compliance: Theorizing and Operationalizing Political Influences.” Regulation and Governance 15, no. 3 (2021): 653–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12291.
Simon, William H. “Legality, Bureaucracy, and Class in the Welfare System.” The Yale Law Journal 1198 (1983): 323–94. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003073246-20.
Sistyawan, Dwanda Julisa, Retno Saraswati, Tyesta A.L.W. Lita, Marcellus Jayawibawa, and Mohammad Syaiful Aris. “The Development of Positivism’S Legal Theory: From Bentham To Hart.” Petita: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Dan Syariah 9, no. 2 (2024): 777–801. https://doi.org/10.22373/petita.v9i1.402.
Somek, Alexander. The Legal Relation: Legal Theory After Legal Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Ståhl, Christian, Daniel Lundqvist, and Cathrine Reineholm. “Improving Work Environments through Regulation: A Literature Review on the Influence of Regulation, Inspection Practices and Organizational Conditions in European Workplaces.” Safety Science 191, no. May (2025): 106917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106917.
Uliasz, Roman. “Cross-Cultural and Linguistic Dynamics in the Deterritorialization of Legal Concepts Through International Commercial Contracts.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 38, no. 4 (2025): 1291–1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-024-10207-2.
Waismann, Friedrich. The Principle of Linguistic Philosophy. Edited by Rom Harre. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
Yadin, Sharon. “The Hidden Nature of Regulation.” Harvard Negotiation Law Review 31, no. May (2025): 1–64. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5211248.
Zeifert, Mateusz, and Zygmunt Tobor. “Legal Translation Versus Legal Interpretation. A Legal-Theoretical Perspective.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 35, no. 5 (2022): 1671–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09837-7.
Downloads
Published
Article ID
35150Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhamad Pelengkahu (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
