Ambiguity of The Criminal Provision: Methodological Insights from the American Supreme Court and the Kuwaiti Constitutional Court

Abstract

This research paper examines the inherent ambiguity within criminal provisions, exploring the methodological approaches employed by the American Supreme Court and the Kuwaiti Constitutional Court in interpreting and adjudicating cases involving ambiguous criminal statutes. The study delves into the complexities surrounding legal ambiguities, the challenges they pose to the rule of law, and the divergent approaches taken by these two legal systems. The study showed that this principle restricts legislative authority when formulating criminal laws, which is that they must be understood by those who are addressed according to the standard of a normal person abiding by the law. This study followed the comparative analytical approach for the research to increase its richness and scientific value, as it includes rulings of comparative constitutional courts and then an analysis of those rulings about the criteria for determining ambiguity. Finally, this study suggested the adoption of a clear approach and specific, fixed, measurable, and applicable standards by the Kuwaiti Constitutional Court when imposing its oversight on ambiguous penal texts, to ensure the integrity of the legal structure and to reach clear, consistent results.