[jpk]

This is kinda what we call "legalese". It's a sort of formalized subset of English (or whatever language) that leans on standardized turns of phrase, it tends to set up definitions for terms that are then used throughout a document, etc. All in order to reduce misunderstanding and (hopefully) be easy to interpret in the event of a dispute.

However, we have whole judicial systems that spend a non-trivial fraction of their time interpreting legal verbiage. So clearly it falls short at least some of the time, otherwise courts could be, in part, automated away. Maybe that's because it's too hard or not possible with natural languages? Or the legalese ruleset just isn't refined enough?

[sillymath]

I think that when law is introduced the consequences are not clear so the small print is used to introduce modifications to the rules, so the problem is about adapting a rule to the everyday use of it.

[hkt]

I suspect for clarity of communication we'd need to start with clarity of thought - the reason legalise doesn't eliminate ambiguity is because people aren't effectively omniscient, regardless of the level of their training. Add to that a shifting environment (new considerations etc) which can make previously valid documents ambiguous and you have a recipe for difficulties.

tl;dr cognitive ambiguities and changing circumstances are what make this hard, not language as a medium

[nocoiner]

I agree and disagree. I do think that the purpose of legal documents is to take a given set of inputs and dictate a predictable output. But (1) sometimes ambiguity is deliberate (for instance, to kick the can on a business point and hope that it never actually manifests itself after the deal is signed) and (2) as you note, sometimes totally unexpected circumstances arise.

Wouldn’t any constructed/logical language (is that the right term?) also be susceptible to unpredictable future developments?