ALSA 2025 meeting

Legislation is the cornerstone of governance—it not only codifies societal norms and structures but also delineates the boundaries within which public life unfolds. Although legal texts are often seen as universal instruments intended for every citizen, a closer examination of the legislative process reveals that they are rarely addressed to an undifferentiated audience. Instead, lawmakers craft these texts with a specific “ideal‐typical” addressee in mind. This paper interrogates a fundamental question: for whom should legislation truly be written?
Drawing upon the theory of participatory democracy, the analysis challenges the conventional assumption of universal accessibility. Participatory democracy upholds transparency, inclusiveness, and active citizen engagement in shaping policy—ideals that suggest legislative texts should primarily address the general audience. Yet, as legal frameworks have grown more complex, the practice of legislative drafting has increasingly shifted toward a technical approach that demands specialized expertise. This evolution raises a metaphorical question: in pursuing the ideals of participatory democracy, should legislative drafting be systematic, precise, and in unambiguous language—or have a narrative style and everyday language that render the law more accessible and meaningful?
To address this issue, the paper is organized as follows. Part One examines the ideal-typical audiences of legislative texts and the implications of their distinct informational needs. Part Two explores how a functional approach—focusing on the intended regulatory impact—should guide the selection of a default addressee, particularly regarding the distinction between legislative outputs and outcomes. Part Three investigates the interplay between technical legal language and participatory democratic ideals, and Part Four considers legislative drafting as a dual process: prescriptive for the legal community and informative for the broader public, highlighting how supplementary materials can bridge the gap between legal precision and public comprehension.