Why are laws so vague in countries with separation of power?
<p>One thing I've noticed is that in countries with separation of power doctrines tend to have more vague laws. Could it be because the job of interpreting laws is of the judiciary? And that is why the laws are purposedly left vague?</p>

<p>In countries with separation of powers, laws may be more vague in order to allow for flexibility and adaptability in their interpretation and application. This is because the judiciary, which is one of the branches of government with the power to interpret laws, plays a key role in determining the meaning and application of laws in practice.</p>
<p>The separation of powers doctrine aims to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful by dividing power among different branches. The judiciary, as an independent branch, has the power to interpret laws and ensure that they are consistent with the Constitution and other laws. This means that the judiciary has a degree of discretion in interpreting laws, and laws may be written in a more general and flexible way to allow for this.</p>
<p>Additionally, laws in these countries are often written to be applicable to a wide range of situations and cases. This is because it is difficult to predict all of the different ways that a law may be applied, and to anticipate all of the specific circumstances that may arise. Therefore, laws are often written in a more general way so that they can be applied in a variety of situations.</p>
<p>In short, laws in countries with separation of power may be more vague because they are written to allow for flexibility and adaptability in their interpretation and application, and to be applicable in a wide range of situations.</p>

<p>In places without fused parliamentary systems, multiple bodies that aren't necessarily controlled by one political party or one political coalition all have to agree to adopt a law. This makes reaching consensus on fine details of laws difficult.</p>
<p>For example, for most national laws in the U.S., one needs a majority of the U.S. House (currently controlled by Republicans), a 60% majority in the U.S. Senate (where the Democratic party majority has 52 Senators, three of whom are independents who often vote with it, out of 100), and a Democratic President who can veto legislation approved by both houses of Congress (which can only be overcome by a two-thirds majority of the House and a two-thirds majority of the Senate). Also, separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch tends to undermine party discipline in votes on legislation.</p>
<p>One way that this gets dealt with in order to get the required broad agreement on legislation is to adopt a vague law and for the backers of the law to gamble that the way that the court's resolve the ambiguities will be acceptable.</p>

international