Another way to connect ideas without cross-references is to label ideas with specific words or phrases that distinguish them from similar ideas. For example, in the licensing provision above, the licence could be referred to as a “recreational fishing licence” rather than a more general “licence”. Similarly, the “fee” referred to in subsection 4(4) could be referred to as a “filing fee”. If you want users to meet certain requirements from another federal agency, which they wouldn`t have to do otherwise, you must meet the requirements of the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). A federal agency may refer to the regulations of another federal agency only if the OFR determines that the reference meets one of the conditions set out in 1 CFR 21.21. For a discussion of these terms, see the WCR Drafting Legal Documents under Cross-References. Many cross-references can confuse users and make them less aware of your message. You can also overwhelm your users` short-term memory. Imagine the work it would take for a user to solve this short section of our tax regulations (26 CFR 1.1(h)-1): On the other hand, repeated bulky material can be just as annoying for users.
So there`s a place for cross-references, but the challenge isn`t to overdo it. It does not help your audience to say something like, “As a licensee, you must comply with sections 542.6 and 543.10 and all other applicable laws and regulations. What exactly does “all other applicable laws and regulations” mean? Do you expect your reader to become a lawyer and seek the answer to this question? This form of cross-referencing reflects a lazy writer. And it probably won`t accomplish much. While cross-references remove ambiguities and facilitate fragmentary reading of legislative texts, they also have drawbacks. When amending legal texts or renumbering drafts, care must be taken to correct the references. Cross-references interrupt the reading of a text by referring the reader to a numbered provision, which must then be translated into the reflections contained in that provision. The interrupt is particularly annoying if the cross-reference is detailed enough.
Although the current convention on composite references is much simpler than in the past, let us now say “subparagraph 2(2)(a)(i)” instead of “subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of.”), there are still times when references are confused, for example, references to paragraphs or subparagraphs of a definition (“paragraph (a) of the definition “state” in section 2″). Definitions and implementing rules should only be used where numerous references are made in the legal text. They are not necessary if the purpose of the definition or application is mentioned in only a few consolidated provisions. In such cases, the proximity of the references should remove any ambiguity. If the cross-reference refers to lengthy documents that, if included, would make the wording long and complicated, you may need to direct users to another section. Typically, this includes lengthy descriptive documents, such as a long list of items or a list of requirements that you want to apply to a new situation. Traditional English formulation views each section and subsection as independent thoughts that must stand on their own. It also takes into account paragraphs and other child text units in the same way. Therefore, a specific reference is usually inserted whenever reference is made to something in another provision (section, subsection, paragraph, etc.). Even more precision is possible by using a definition.
For example, if an administrative body is established in Section 4, a definition may be inserted to link references to the name of the entity in Section 4. However, the word or phrase defined should be as informative as possible so that the reader knows that it is a specific entity (e.g., the “commercial court”) and not a general reference (“court”). Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for cross-references There are several ways to handle cross-references. It`s best to organize your material in such a way that you no longer need cross-references. Often, you are forced to use cross-referencing because the material is not organized as it should be, so the material that belongs together can instead be found in remote sections. However, given the complexity of some documents, it will not be possible to eliminate them all. If a cross-reference refers to a short material, simply repeat that material and remove the cross-reference. Sometimes careful reflection can show that you have inserted an unnecessary cross-reference. This approach is based on the need to avoid any ambiguity. It also recognizes that many people read legal texts piecemeal, especially feature ones, in search of an answer to a particular question. They want to find a provision that gives them their answer and go through the marginal text or notes until they find one that seems to give the answer. If the provision refers to something without a specific reference, they must read the accompanying provisions to find the reference.
Adding a cross-reference to a definition for the convenience of the public can create a problem if you don`t repeat it every time you use the word.