In general, the editorial team should be composed of people familiar with the content of the issue to be regulated, lawyers with experience of legislation and, in the case of politically sensitive projects, representatives of the main political groups in the legislature. Generally speaking, experts in this field will determine what needs to be regulated to achieve the objectives of the legislative mandate. The choice between the various options proposed for the regulation will be preceded by a policy, and lawyers will be responsible for presenting ideas in the right form and language, both legally and technically. True collaboration should be established between the three categories of teammates to ensure productive interactions between knowledge and judgment that each brings to the process. Dworkin believes that jurisprudence is and should be interpretive: „Judges should decide difficult cases by interpreting the political structure of their community in the following, perhaps peculiar, way: in trying to find the best justification they can find in the principles of political morality for the structure as a whole, from the deepest constitutional rules and agreements to the details of, for example, the private law of tort or contract“ (Dworkin 1982, p. 165). So there are two elements to a successful interpretation. First, where an interpretation is successful in so far as it justifies the particular practices of a given company, it must be consistent with those practices in the sense that it complies with the existing legal elements defining those practices. Second, since an interpretation provides a moral justification for these practices, it must present them in the best possible moral light.
Therefore, Dworkin argues that a judge should strive to interpret a case roughly as follows: The rule of law is an essentially controversial term. It is defined in different ways, and debate is also necessary to make it flourish. The differences relate to the question of which elements are included in the concept. In all definitions, the rule of law deals with the control of public authority by law for the purpose of protecting the individual. The rule of law is central to the rule of law. First, legality requires the government to act on the basis of the law. Second, it sets out a number of quality requirements with which the law must comply, such as generality and clarity. Legality also requires the judiciary to review the legality of government actions and allow individuals access to a fair trial. In addition, a functional separation of the three powers is an inherent element of the rule of law as it ensures that no one is a judge in his or her own case and that laws are not passed with specific cases in mind. The independence of the judiciary is essential to the rule of law because it respects the law. These elements are formal elements of the rule of law that protect individuals to some extent from the arbitrary exercise of state power.
The requirements of legality promote individual autonomy because they allow people to plan their lives. These formal elements of the rule of law are necessary, but not sufficient, to limit the substantive content of the law. More comprehensive definitions of the rule of law include the protection of human rights. Human rights can restrict the content of laws. Human rights aim to protect the individual against arbitrariness. In addition, procedural rights codify the principles of the rule of law and, as such, form part of the rule of law. Democracy, too, is sometimes understood as an element of the rule of law. Legality then requires that the law have a democratic legacy. Conceptually, the rule of law and democracy can be distinguished. In practice, the two concepts are inextricably linked, as they both aim to protect the equality and autonomy of the individual. Within European states, it is logical to consider the rule of law in the context of democracy and human rights, as these three concepts are part of the same political tradition of these states. The German rule of law, the French rule of law and the British concepts of the rule of law must be understood in a comprehensive sense in order to require that laws have a democratic heritage and remain within the limits of the constitution.
At the same time, the balance between democracy and the protection of fundamental rights varies in these states. The degree of clarity of a statement can be assessed on the basis of formal criteria such as presentation, forms of communication, formulation and logical expression of ideas. At the same time, however, it also depends on the assessment of the intended recipient. The clarity of a document therefore depends on a combination of objective and subjective aspects. The concept of clarity is subjective in that it depends on the knowledge, skills, experience and state of mind of the person to whom the information is addressed. Thus, a legal provision will seem perfectly clear to the person who drafted it, but a lawyer who wants to use it to support a legal argument may very well find it less clear, and the lawyer`s client may not understand its meaning at all. For the judge, who must interpret the provision to rule on its applicability, This task becomes all the easier if the intentions of the legislator have been clearly expressed. In any case, conceptual analysis of law remains an important, albeit controversial, project in contemporary legal theory. Conceptual theories of law can be divided into two main headings: (a) those that claim that there is a conceptual relationship between law and morality, and (b) those that deny the existence of such a relationship. Nevertheless, Ronald Dworkin`s view is often characterized as a third theory, in part because it is not clear where he stands on the question of whether there is a conceptual relationship between law and morality.
Indeed, according to Dworkin, the relationship between case law and jurisprudence is so close that case law is nothing more than the most general part of case law; Dworkin concludes that „the opinion of each judge is itself an element of legal philosophy“ (Dworkin 1986, 90). Legal philosophy topics tend to be more abstract than related topics of political philosophy and applied ethics. Whereas, for example, the question of how to interpret the United States correctly. The constitution belongs to the theory of democracy (and therefore belongs to political philosophy), the analysis of the interpretation of law under the rubric of legal philosophy. While the question of whether the death penalty is morally permissible falls under the rubric of applied ethics, the question of whether the imposition of a penalty can be justified is a matter of legal philosophy. „Clear“ means easy to understand or understand. It also means unambiguous or unambiguous. For a document to be said to be clear, it must not only be easy to understand for its audience, but also convey the same message to those who read it. Order, cleanliness and precision are related concepts. What is ordered, orderly and precise is also clear.
On the other hand, clutter and imprecision lead to confusion and ambiguity.