Flexibility and adaptability of legal norms in the context of legal technique

The article examines the correlation between the concepts of “flexibility of a legal norm” and “adaptability of a legal norm” in the context of legal technique. An analysis of the existing approaches in academic literature to understanding these categories is carried out. Based on the results of this analysis, considering the needs of the present study, the ongoing debate over the definition of the category “flexibility of legal norms” in legal scholarship, and the absence of any definition of the category “adaptability of legal norms,” the author proposes original definitions of these categories. The author suggests interpreting flexibility of legal norms as their property consisting in the ability of such norms to be applied variably, and adaptability as the property of legal norms consisting in their ability to adjust to changes in the conditions of their functioning. The research distinguishes between cases where both properties are manifested simultaneously and where each is manifested independently. It is noted that adaptability may appear both due to flexibility and independently – through changes in law enforcement practice. It is further pointed out that such changes may occur both in the practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine when interpreting national legal norms and in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights when interpreting the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article notes that flexibility, as a property of legal norms, may manifest independently from adaptability in cases where the variability provided by the formalization of the norm is applied without relation to changes in the conditions of its functioning. An example is provided from the practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine where a legal norm that did not allow for variable application was adapted to new conditions of its functioning arising from amendments to the applicable Ukrainian legislation. The article also distinguishes between the areas of operation of legislative (law-making) and law-enforcement legal technique, which ensure the respective properties of legal norms. It is indicated that flexibility as a property of legal norms may be ensured through compliance with the rules of legislative legal technique, while adaptability is ensured partly through legislative technique (within the limits identical to flexibility), and partly through law-enforcement technique (within the limits of evolving interpretative practice).