Some laws remain in force despite their apparent obsolescence because their repeal may require significant resources and time to be carried out, and authorities sometimes prefer to leave them in place as long as they do not pose major problems.
Some old laws, despite their apparent obsolescence, remain in place simply because they are an integral part of a country's historical heritage or cultural identity. Even when they become useless or strange, they are sometimes seen as a symbol or a mark of respect for tradition. Some regions thus jealously preserve old legislation to avoid offending their cultural sensitivity or the emotional attachment of the population to a certain past considered essential to their identity. These laws may no longer have any real practical use, but they tell a story, remind us of a crucial historical context, or maintain a sort of collective memory. This sometimes leads to amusing situations where obsolete laws persist simply because "it's always been that way."
Changing a law can be incredibly complicated. The legislative procedure involves an endless succession of debates, back and forth between the National Assembly and the Senate, and lengthy reviews of the texts before their final adoption. As a result, even when everyone seems to agree that a law is outdated, the time required to initiate change often discourages parliamentarians. Moreover, amending a law carries the risk of opening a Pandora's box, with many unforeseen amendments that can further slow down the process. The outcome: many prefer to leave obsolete laws in place, even if they are no longer truly suitable.
It often happens that influential interest groups, such as certain industries or economic lobbies, act to preserve laws that directly benefit them, even if those laws seem outdated or counterproductive for society. These actors use their financial or electoral weight to pressure elected officials to maintain the status quo rather than risk reforms that could harm them. For their part, political leaders sometimes prefer not to engage in delicate or unpopular battles with their supporters or donors, even if it means leaving clearly obsolete texts in place. These political and economic calculations thus commonly lead to the persistence of laws that are poorly suited to current realities.
Our society often struggles with changes, especially when it comes to challenging old habits. Many outdated laws remain because people are emotionally attached to them or simply fear the unknown. Sometimes, it is also a matter of cultural identity: removing or modifying certain laws seems to touch on traditions that populations hold dear. This resistance is even stronger when there is a risk of offending the moral or religious beliefs of a part of society. Policymakers then hesitate to address these laws, fearing being misunderstood, rejected, or simply losing electoral support. As a result, even if they are outdated, these rules persist because changing mindsets is never simple or quick.
When a judge makes a decision, it often serves as a reference for future cases. This is called setting precedent. Even if a law seems completely outdated, previous judicial decisions indirectly reinforce its status. Courts often prefer to follow what has already been done in order to maintain a certain coherence. As a result, obsolete rules remain in place simply because no one questions previous judgments. No one wants to risk creating uncertainty by disrupting judicial habits. This is why old texts sometimes persist due to a series of past decisions, even though everyone knows they no longer really fit the current world.
In the United States, some states still have particularly unusual laws, such as the prohibition of playing dominoes on Sundays in Alabama. These laws often remain on the books because their repeal is not considered a legal or political priority.
Some countries have specific bodies responsible for periodically cleaning up legislation to eliminate outdated laws. In France, for example, this role is partially fulfilled by the High Commission for Codification.
In the United Kingdom, a law dating back to the 14th century stipulates that all whales captured in territorial waters automatically belong to the English monarch. This provision is now completely outdated but remains officially in effect.
The legal term 'désuétude' precisely refers to the phenomenon of a law that has not been applied for a long time but has not been formally repealed. However, only certain legal systems explicitly recognize this concept as a means of the extinction of laws.
Citizens can call on their elected representatives, launch petitions, participate in public consultations, and raise awareness among their peers and decision-makers about the concrete issues caused by the persistence of certain outdated laws. Informed public pressure often serves as a significant catalyst for initiating legislative change.
Yes, certain laws deemed obsolete can theoretically still be enforced if they have never been officially repealed or annulled. However, authorities often ensure not to apply these laws if they obviously contradict current values and standards.
Indeed, even if a law seems outdated, its persistence can lead to ambiguities or complex situations in court. For example, judges may be required to interpret or limit the scope of a law in order to maintain coherence with the current social and legislative context.
To determine if a law is outdated, it is important to examine its historical context, its current application, and any recent court rulings related to it. Often, the media, researchers, or legal experts openly identify these laws that are unsuitable for everyday life, thereby facilitating public awareness.
The repeal of a law requires deliberate legislative action, which often involves lengthy parliamentary debates, a difficult-to-reach political consensus, and high administrative costs. It is common for parliaments to prioritize more urgent current issues, leaving some outdated laws still in effect.
No one has answered this quiz yet, be the first!' :-)
Question 1/2
