International Journal of Law And Criminology
58
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue07 2025
PAGE NO.
58-60
10.37547/ijlc/Volume05Issue07-08
Scientific and Theoretical Problems in The Concept and
Types of Systematization of Legislation
Choriyev Ulugbek Rustamovich
Second-year student of the Public Law Faculty, State Legal Activity program, Tashkent State University of Law, Uzbekistan
Received:
26 May 2025;
Accepted:
22 June 2025;
Published:
24 July 2025
Abstract:
This article examines the significance of systematizing legal norms, the appropriate terminology for this
process, and the main types of legislatio
n systematization. It provides an analysis of scholars’ views on each issue,
explores the experiences of other countries, and compares them with existing norms and practices reflected in
the normative-legal acts of our country. Based on this analysis, the article attempts to offer comprehensive
solutions and proposals to the identified scientific and theoretical problems. The discussion includes the positions
of various groups of scholars and the underlying reasons for their perspectives, along with the aut
hor’s own
viewpoint on the matter.
Keywords:
Systematization of legislation, codification, incorporation, consolidation, consolidated document.
Introduction:
In the system of legal sciences, the
systematization of legislation is one of the key issues of
both theoretical and practical importance. Today, there
is an increasing need to enhance the efficiency of public
administration, deepen legal reforms, and make
legislative acts more comprehensible and accessible for
citizens and legal entities. From this perspective, the
systematization of legislation serves as a crucial
mechanism that ensures the coherence and logical
consistency of legal regulation instruments.
Systematization not only helps control the growing
number of normative legal acts but also organizes
them, eliminates duplicative norms, updates outdated
provisions, and resolves contradictions. Naturally, this
process necessitates a thorough scientific-legal analysis
of the concept of legislation systematization.
Therefore, in this study, two key issues are addressed:
1) the development of a unified concept for the
systematization of legal norms, along with an analysis
of the various scholarly views on this matter; 2) the
question of whether the concept of consolidation
should be included among the types of legislation
systematization.
In analyzing each issue, we present the theoretical and
legal foundations of scholars on both sides, critically
examine them, and offer and substantiate our own
position. In addition, the article explores the practices
of different legal families regarding the understanding
of consolidation and provides conclusions based on
that analysis.
METHODOLOGY
The aim of this research is to identify and propose
solutions to the existing issues in forming a general
concept of the systematization of legal norms, as well
as in understanding the types of legislation
systematization. The primary objective is to analyze
these problems and review various proposed solutions,
and to offer additional alternative legal and
organizational recommendations. To achieve these
goals, the author employed several scientific research
methods, including comparative analysis and logical
reasoning.
DISCUSSION
The organization of existing legal norms into an orderly,
unified system is equally important for every country,
regardless of its legal family. This process helps improve
the efficiency of legal practice, resolve contradictions
and eliminate duplications among normative legal acts.
Legal scholars refer to this process as the
“systematization of legislation.” It should be noted,
however, that referring to the systematization of legal
norms as the systematization of legislation is not a
International Journal of Law And Criminology
59
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
universally accepted terminology among scholars. For
instance, the legal scholar G.F. Shershenevich describes
this process in his works as a “systematic unification of
laws,” while some other scholars prefer the term
“systematic revision of current legislation.” In
our view,
Shershenevich’s interpretation is narrower in scope, as
the systematization of legal norms involves not only
laws but also subordinate legal acts. Therefore, using
the broader term “legislation” instead of merely “laws”
appears to be more appropriate.
As defined in the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On
Normative Legal Acts,” the concept of legislation
encompasses both legal acts (such as the Constitution,
laws, and decisions of the chambers of the Oliy Majlis)
and subordinate acts (such as decrees and decisions of
the President, resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers,
orders and regulations of ministries and agencies, and
decisions of local authorities) [1].
Regarding the second issue, when viewed from the
standpoint of modern systematization theory,
systematization of legislation is not merely a technical
editing of legal texts as it may have been perceived in
the past. Rather, it is a broader and more complex
process. Various scholars provide differing definitions
of legislation systematization. For example, legal
scholar
Sh.A.
Saydullayev
defines
legislation
systematization as an activity aimed at organizing and
improving legislation by bringing legal documents into
a structured and internally consistent system [2].
Another interpretation holds that the systematization
of legislative acts is a prerequisite for the proper
functioning and continuous development of the legal
system, as well as a form of regulating and logically
summarizing current legal documents [3].
From our perspective, systematization of legislation
refers to methods that contribute to the development
and improvement of legislation, as well as to facilitating
the application of normative legal acts. The main types
of legislation systematization are typically identified as
codification and incorporation. Whether consolidation
should be included among these types remains a
subject of scholarly debate. For example, in his
academic work, Vladislav Yu. Turanin includes
codification, incorporation, and consolidation as types
of legislation systematization [4]. Similarly, A.F.
Shebanov also highlights consolidation as a distinct
form of systematization in his writings [5]. On the other
hand, in the works of Kh.T. Odilqoriyev [6] and many
other Russian scholars, only two primary types of
systematization
—
codification and incorporation
—
are
addressed.
It is appropriate to examine the views of both groups of
scholars when discussing this issue. Scholars who
recognize consolidation as a separate type of legislation
systematization highlight the following distinctive
features of the process:
Firstly, consolidation involves bringing together all
normative legal acts related to a specific issue into one
place. In this process, all legal documents pertaining to
a certain subject matter are compiled. In terms of this
feature,
consolidation
resembles
subject-based
incorporation.
Secondly, minor editorial changes may be made during
consolidation [7]. Scholars who view consolidation as a
distinct form of systematization point to this feature as
a key difference from incorporation. As is well known,
even such minor editorial changes are not permitted in
incorporation.
Thirdly, consolidation results in the creation of a new
normative legal document, though unlike codification.
In codification, the content of norms from previous
legal acts is substantively modified and incorporated
into a new document, whereas in consolidation, the
process involves only editorial changes. Examples of
new
normative
legal
acts
created
through
consolidation are more frequently found in the works
of Russian scholars. For instance, Professor T.V.
Kashanina cites Federal Law No. 5 "On Veterans" dated
January 12, 1995, which consolidated over a hundred
different legal documents regulating the same issue [8].
Fourthly, after consolidation is completed, the
consolidated documents lose their legal force as
independent legal acts [9]. This feature of consolidation
is somewhat similar to codification. However, while the
primary goal of codification is to regulate legal relations
and resolve issues in legal application, the main
purpose of consolidation is to increase clarity within
normative legal documents.
Nevertheless, as previously noted, there are scholars
who disagree with these views. In particular,
Odilqoriyev argues that the method of compiling
normative legal acts (consolidation) is closely related to
systematization of legislation. He considers the
compilation of legislation as a preliminary step that
precedes full-fledged systematization [10].
In our opinion, it is not correct to consider
consolidation as an independent type of legislation
systematization. We can provide the following reasons
for this conclusion:
Firstly, under modern legal trends, new social relations
are rapidly evolving, and any systematization of such
relations must be able to respond to continuous
changes. This inevitably requires the incorporation of
substantive amendments into legal norms during
systematization. This characteristic is typical of
International Journal of Law And Criminology
60
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
codification; therefore, consolidation does not meet
the demands of the current era.
Secondly, the distinctive features of consolidation are
not sufficient to classify it as a separate type of
legislation
systematization.
Specifically,
the
characteristic of collecting normative legal acts on a
specific topic into one document is typical of
incorporation and cannot be considered an exclusive
feature of consolidation. The fact that consolidated
documents lose their legal force after consolidation is a
feature more akin to codification. Therefore, we
believe that consolidation should be regarded as a
preliminary stage before codification
—
merely a step
involving the compilation of documents rather than a
full-fledged systematization process.
I would also like to draw attention to another argument
presented by those who support recognizing
consolidation as an independent type of legislation
systematization. It is argued that consolidation is still
used in modern legislation, particularly in countries
belonging to the Anglo-Saxon legal family. A specific
example is the Consumer Rights Act passed by the UK
Parliament in 2015. This act consolidated a number of
previously existing laws, including the Sale of Goods Act
1979, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, the
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999,
and other regulatory instruments [11].
However, what is noteworthy here is that although this
systematization process was referred to as
consolidation, in essence, it aligned more closely with
the characteristics of codification. These laws were not
simply compiled; significant changes were made during
the systematization process. These amendments
affected the content of the legal norms and helped
eliminate contradictions and duplications. Moreover,
several new legal norms were also introduced within
the structure of the consolidated document. Based on
this, it can be concluded that although the
systematization process in the UK was labeled as
consolidation, it reflected the main features of
codification rather than consolidation.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, systematization of legislation is a highly
important process that must be thoroughly studied by
scholars and is widely used in the legal systems of
developed countries, offering substantial benefits in
the field of legal regulation. While there are differing
scholarly opinions regarding the terminology to
describe the process of organizing legal norms into a
coherent system, we believe that, based on the
features of the current legislation and the concept’s
defining characteristics, the most appropriate term is
“systematization of legislation.” The article has
provided supporting arguments for this position.
Moreover, one of the most debated issues in this field
is whether consolidation should be included as a type
of legislation systematization. We have examined the
arguments of both groups of scholars and presented
our own reasoned conclusion. That is, in our view,
consolidation does not possess sufficient distinguishing
features to be recognized as an independent type of
legislation systematization in the context of modern
legal development. Although different legal traditions
approach this concept differently, its theoretical and
legal foundations lead us to this conclusion.
Based on the above analysis, we believe it is necessary
to establish a clear definition of the concept of
“systematization of legislation” in law, and to regulate
the types of systematization not only in legal
scholarship but also at the normative-legal act level.
REFERENCES
https://lex.uz/docs/-5378966
–
“Normativ
-huquqiy
hujjatlar to`g
`risida” gi qonun
Saydullayev Sh. A. Davlat va huquq nazariyasi.
–
Toshkent: TDYU 2021.
–
B. 184.
Проблемы общей теории права и государства/Под.
общ. ред. проф. В.С. Нерсесянца.
Turanin, Vladislav & Yarychev, Nasrudi & Senyakin, Ivan
& Sumenkov, Sergey & Vasekina, Elvira. (2020). MEANS
OF LEGAL TERMS SYSTEMATIZATION IN LAWMAKING.
Shebanov A. F. Nekotorye voprosy teorii normativnykh
aktov
v
svjazi
s
sistematizatsiej
sovetskogo
zakonodatelstva [Some Promblems of Theory of • Legal
Acts in Connection with Sistematization of Soviet
Legislation].
Qarang: Odilqoriyev X.T. Davlat va huquq nazariyasi.
–
T., 2018.
–
B. 331.
Vide p.e.: Matuzov N. I., Malko A. V. Teorija
gosudarstva I prava [Theory of State and Law].
Moscow: Jurist, 2009. P. 308; Melekhin A. V. Teorija
gosudarstva I prava [Theory of State and Law].
Moscow: Market DS, 2007. P. 342; Khropanjuk V. N.
Teorija gosudarstva I prava [Theory of State and Law].
Moscow: Interstil; Omega-L, 2006. P. 250.
Kashanina T. V. Juridicheskaja tekhnika [Legal
Techniques]. Moscow: Norma; INFRA-M, 2011. P. 355-
356.
Supreme note 7
Supreme note 11.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/conte
nts - 2015-
yildagi “Iste’molchilar huquqlari to`g`risidagi
Buyuk Britaniya parlamenti akti”
