Abstract

Understanding legal ambiguity has become a crucial focus in contemporary law, highlighting important conflicts between the strictness of statutory law and the flexibility of legal symbols. This study investigates the relationship between law and semiotics, emphasizing how symbols, language, and interpretative frameworks contribute to legal ambiguity and its effects on the delivery of justice. Situated within the framework of modern legal thought, the research thoroughly examines how legal texts are created, interpreted, and manipulated across different socio-political contexts. Employing a qualitative approach, the study draws on secondary sources, including court opinions, statutory laws, and academic literature, to explore inconsistencies in interpretation. The research uncovers a notable gap in legal scholarship: while legal theory often prioritizes clarity and predictability, it tends to neglect the semiotic aspects that challenge these principles. By bridging this gap, the study emphasizes how semiotics can offer deeper insights into legal interpretation, uncovering biases and power dynamics that exist within legal frameworks. The findings indicate that legal ambiguity is not just a flaw but a necessary feature of law, providing flexibility in its application while also opening doors for potential manipulation. This tension calls into question the traditional view of law as a stable and objective system. The study contributes to the legal field by promoting an integrative approach that merges legal theory with semiotics, presenting new tools for interpreting laws in diverse societies. It concludes that legal semiotics can improve legal interpretation and foster fairness, highlighting the importance of further interdisciplinary research to enhance jurisprudence practices.