“Pravova derzhava”. Issue 35 (2024), pages 170–179.

DOI: 10.33663/0869-2491-2024-35-170-179

Volohov Oleksiy
Ineffective legal norm: general theoretical characteristics

Legal reforms in Ukraine, which are sometimes accompanied by a shift in the priorities of the participants of the legislative process (who are trying to achieve political goals, obtain political dividends, or have a low level of rule-making technique), can lead to the implementation of ineff ective legal norms that do not have a clear goal and do not contain mechanisms of legal regulation. Such legal norms may confl ict with other norms; they aim not to achieve social goals and only partially correspond to existing social relations. Therefore, there is a need to research such a legal category as an ineff ective norm of law, the features of its adoption, and the reasons for ineff ectiveness, criteria, and classifi cation of such norms. After all, introducing responsibility for adopting an ineff ective norm should be done by forming a clear concept and criteria for an inadequate norm. An ineff ective legal norm is a norm in legislation that is unable to achieve the set goal of legal regulation and ensure the interests of the state and society promote their interaction; such a rule is a consequence of a rule-making error and abuse of the right of the subject of rulemaking, neglect of the latest existing rules of rule-making technique. The analysis of scientifi c approaches makes it possible to single out the main signs of an ineff ective legal norm:

1. The impossibility of achieving the set goal of legal regulation, which means the presence of a goal set by the legislator that does not correspond to the current level of development of society and the state or the absence of eff ective mechanisms of legal regulation.

2. Contradicts to the interests of the state and society. That means the legal norm was adopted contrary to the principles of law, international principles, and European standards, which place the interests of the state and society as the main object of legal regulation.

3. Does not comply with the rules of normative engineering (especially about other norms). The legal norm does not contain implementation mechanisms and stable legal terminology; the provisions and purpose of such a rule must be clarifi ed and understandable for participants in legal relations.

4. Does not correspond to the current development of social relations. The legal norm contradicts specifi c moral or religious rules and beliefs, as well as the socioeconomic and political development of society at a particular stage, or, on the contrary, contains provisions that are not perceived equally by all participants of legal relations, considering their level of legal awareness.

5. Contradicts other norms of the law of higher legal force, which leads to collisions. The number of signs characterizing an ineff ective norm of law deals with its content and, therefore, arises already at the law-making initiative stage, when the norm’s purpose and project are formed. Due to the legislator’s mistakes and defects in the Rulemaking Process, the ineffi cient norms can be separated into fi ctitious norms, norms with negative eff ectiveness, and defective norms. The identifi cation of ineffi cient norms and their elimination should be the focus of legislators, scientists, and active members of civil society. In addition, the study of the institution of responsibility for developing and adopting ineffi cient norms requires special attention. The development of the institution of responsibility for developing and adopting ineff ective norms requires special attention because this issue should be the subject of separate scientifi c investigations.

Key words: an ineffi cient legal norm, classifi cation of an ineff ective legal norm, defects of the Rulemaking Process, criteria of an ineffi cient legal norm.

References 

1. Kosovych V. Yakist normatyvno-pravovykh aktiv Ukrainy: zahalnoteoretychna kharakterystyka. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu: zbirnyk naukovykh prats. Seriia yurydychna. 2012. Vyp. 55. S. 20–27. S. 21. 
2. Matveieva Yu. Sotsialna efektyvnist pravovykh norm. Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Yurydychni nauky. T. 53. Kyiv, 2016. S. 31–35. S. 33–34. 
3. Dann A. Eff ective Ways to Change Ineff ective Laws. Arkansas Criminal Justice Institute. 2019. № 04. P. 1–14. S. 5.
4. Huivan P. Sutnist pryntsypu efektyvnosti prava. Chasovyi aspekt. Visnyk NTUU «KPI». Politolohiia. Sotsiolohiia. Pravo. Vypusk 3 (39). 2018. S. 111– 116. S. 113.
5. Lafave W. Modern Criminal Law, Minnesota: West Academic Publishing, 2011. 1120 p. P. 53.
6. Birchenko Yu. Deiaki kryterii otsinky yakosti ta efektyvnosti normatyvno-pravovykh aktiv. Naukovi zapysky Natsionalnoi Kyievo-Mohylianskoi akademii. 2004. № 26. S. 9–14. S. 11.
7. Kosovych V. Prykhovani (latentni) nedoliky normatyvno-pravovykh aktiv Ukrainy: zahalnoteoretychna kharakterystyka. Publichne pravo. 2018. № 2. S. 184–191. S. 185.
8. Ukrainska mala entsyklopediia: 16 kn.: u 8 t. / prof. Ye. Onatskyi. Buenos-Aires, 1967. T. 8. 176(2148) c. S. 1982.
9. Syrotnikova Ya. Do pytannia rozmezhuvannia poniat yurydychna fi ktsiia, pravova fi ktsiia, fi ktyvna norma, fi ktyvnist. Rozvytok pidpryiemnytstva v Ukraini: bezpeka zdiisnennia hospodarskoi diialnosti: zbirnyk naukovykh prats za pidsumkamy kruhloho stolu (Kharkiv, 14 hrudnia 2018 r.). Kharkiv, 2019. S. 219–223. S. 221.
10. Ulianovska O. Fiktsii v pravovii systemi Ukrainy: dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk / Odes. nats. yuryd. akad. Odesa, 2010. 215 s. S. 47