Legal-Technical Defects and Gaps in Legislation: Impact on Law Enforcement and Legal Certainty

Abstract

The article provides a comprehensive theoretical and legal analysis of legal-technical defects and gaps in legal regulation, their impact on law enforcement, and proposes approaches to improving the effectiveness, predictability, and coherence of legal norms. Particular attention is paid to the relationship between the quality of legislative technique and the level of legal certainty as a fundamental principle of the rule of law. The author argues that clear, logically consistent, and internally coordinated legislation is a prerequisite for effective legal implementation and protection of rights.
The study offers a systematic examination of gaps in legislation, blanket and reference norms, duplication, as well as structural defects of normative legal acts as key factors contributing to legal uncertainty. It is substantiated that the combination of these shortcomings leads to systemic instability of legislation and complicates its application. The paper additionally argues that gaps in regulation often arise not only from the absence of norms but also from their ambiguity or inconsistency, which creates discretion risks and uneven enforcement practices. It is proved that their effective elimination requires codification, harmonization, and improvement of legal drafting techniques, alongside the introduction of unified standards of legislative quality control.
The findings demonstrate that judicial practice, particularly that of the Supreme Court, partially compensates for gaps in legislation by developing stable legal positions and ensuring the predictability of judicial decisions. However, this compensatory function cannot replace high-quality lawmaking, as excessive reliance on judicial interpretation may undermine the principle of separation of powers. At the same time, excessive regulation, declarative provisions, and fragmented normative structures reduce regulatory effectiveness, increase interpretative conflicts, and create additional barriers for legal subjects, especially in complex areas such as administrative and economic law.
Eliminating legal-technical defects and gaps in legislation, ensuring systematic structuring of legal norms, and applying comparative legal experience are essential for enhancing the efficiency, stability, and predictability of the legal system. The author concludes that improving legislative technique, strengthening institutional mechanisms of legal expertise, and ensuring consistency between different levels of normative acts are key conditions for achieving legal certainty and reinforcing public trust in the legal system.