Guidelines › Comparative Rules Matrix
Cross-Jurisdictional Legislative Drafting Matrix
How do major national and supranational drafting manuals diverge on core questions of legistics? Explore side-by-side rules across 10 benchmark authorities and 7 drafting dimensions, with exact manual citations and one-click testing in the Bill Drafting Auditor.
Normative Verbs & Obligations ('shall' vs 'must' vs Present Indicative)
How mandatory duties, conditions, and legal consequences are expressed—one of the sharpest divergences between modern Commonwealth plain-language manuals and EU/US practice.
| Authority | Core Stance | Official Rule & Citation | Audit |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK OPC United Kingdom (OPC Drafting Guidance, 2024) common law |
No 'shall'
Avoid 'shall'; use 'must' or present tense
|
OPC Drafting Guidance § 3.2: Avoid 'shall'. Use 'must' for obligations and present indicative ('is', 'applies') for legal states or declarations. | Audit with UK OPC |
| EU JPG European Union (Joint Practical Guide, 2015) supranational |
Uses 'shall'
Requires 'shall' in English operative articles
|
Joint Practical Guide Rule 2 & ISG § 2.3: English binding acts use 'shall' for imperative norms in articles (never in recitals, Rule 10); French/German use present indicative. | Audit with EU JPG |
| US HOLC / ULC United States (House OLC & Uniform Law Commission) common law |
Distinguishes
'Shall' for animate duty; 'must' for conditions
|
HOLC & ULC Rule 304: 'Shall' imposes a duty on an actor ('The Secretary shall...'); 'must' states required conditions ('A notice must include...'). Never use 'shall' for future tense. | Audit with US HOLC / ULC |
| Canada Legistics Canada (Dept. of Justice Legistics) bijural |
No 'shall'
Use 'must' for duties; present tense for rules
|
Legistics ('Shall' and 'Must'): Strongly discourages 'shall' due to ambiguity; recommends 'must' for obligations and present indicative in both English and French. | Audit with Canada Legistics |
| Australia OPC Australia (OPC Plain English Manual & Directions) common law |
No 'shall'
Use 'must' instead of 'shall'
|
Plain English Manual §§ 44–48 & Drafting Direction 1.5: Replaced 'shall' with 'must' for obligations and 'is/are' for declaratory rules. | Audit with Australia OPC |
| New Zealand LDAC New Zealand (Legislation Guidelines, 2021) common law |
No 'shall'
Use 'must'; 'shall' eliminated
|
NZ PCO Plain Language Standard: 'Shall' is eliminated from modern New Zealand legislation in favour of 'must' and present tense. | Audit with New Zealand LDAC |
| Germany HdR Germany (BMJ Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit, 2024) civil law |
Present tense
Present indicative or 'hat zu' / 'muss'
|
HdR Rn. 82–90: Uses present indicative or 'hat zu'/'muss'. 'Soll' (Soll-Vorschrift) denotes a rule binding in normal cases with narrow exception in atypical cases. | Audit with Germany HdR |
| France Légistique France (SGG / Conseil d'État Guide de légistique, 2026) civil law |
Present tense
Present indicative ('présent de l'indicatif')
|
Fiche 3.3.1: The indicative present inherently carries imperative force ('Le ministre arrête...'); avoids future tense or redundant 'doit'. | Audit with France Légistique |
| Commonwealth Commonwealth Secretariat (Drafting Manual, 2017) common law |
Prefers 'must'
Prefer 'must'; strict limits if 'shall' used
|
Ch. 5.4: Recommends 'must' for imposing duties; if a jurisdiction retains 'shall', prohibits using it for declaratory statements or future actions. | Audit with Commonwealth |
| OSCE / OECD OSCE/ODIHR & OECD International Standards international |
Clarity rule
Unambiguous differentiation of duties vs powers
|
Requires strict consistency between mandatory obligations, discretionary powers ('may'), and directory provisions to satisfy legal certainty. | Audit with OSCE / OECD |
Definitions: Placement & Prohibition on Substantive Rules
Where defined terms are placed and the universal rule against hiding rights, duties, or powers inside definitions.
| Authority | Core Stance | Official Rule & Citation | Audit |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK OPC United Kingdom (OPC Drafting Guidance, 2024) common law |
Flexible / Index
Flexible placement + no substantive duties
|
OPC § 4.4: Place definitions where most helpful (inline in section, start of Part, or end of Bill with an Index of Defined Expressions). Never put substantive rules in a definition. | Audit with UK OPC |
| EU JPG European Union (Joint Practical Guide, 2015) supranational |
Early Article
Early Article (Art. 2/3); no normative provisions
|
Rule 14: Definitions belong in an early article in the general provisions and must never contain autonomous normative rules. | Audit with EU JPG |
| US HOLC / ULC United States (House OLC & Uniform Law Commission) common law |
Start of Act
Start of Act/Title; no substantive law in definitions
|
HOLC Guide & ULC Rule 302: Place definitions at the beginning of the Act or relevant Title; do not include substantive requirements inside a definition. | Audit with US HOLC / ULC |
| Canada Legistics Canada (Dept. of Justice Legistics) bijural |
Start (Sec. 2)
Section 2 (start of Act); bilingual alphabetical order
|
Legistics ('Definitions'): Placed in s. 2 after short title; must not have substantive content; cross-referenced in French/English order. | Audit with Canada Legistics |
| Australia OPC Australia (OPC Plain English Manual & Directions) common law |
Dictionary
Dictionary (start or Schedule) + signposts
|
Uses a central Dictionary (often in s. 4 or end Schedule) with asterisk/note signposts and prohibits substantive obligations in definitions. | Audit with Australia OPC |
| New Zealand LDAC New Zealand (Legislation Guidelines, 2021) common law |
Front (Sec. 4/5)
Interpretation section near front; no substantive rules
|
Placed in early Interpretation clause right after purpose/commencement; definitions must not confer powers or impose duties. | Audit with New Zealand LDAC |
| Germany HdR Germany (BMJ Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit, 2024) civil law |
Early § / Inline
Legaldefinition via parentheses or early §
|
HdR Rn. 95–104: Introduce Legaldefinitionen in a general early § or via parenthetical '(Klammerdefinition)' on first use; no hidden commands. | Audit with Germany HdR |
| France Légistique France (SGG / Conseil d'État Guide de légistique, 2026) civil law |
Minimalist
Define only when departing from ordinary meaning
|
Fiche 3.1: Avoid Anglo-Saxon style long definition catalogues unless transposing EU directives; define terms only when strictly necessary. | Audit with France Légistique |
| Commonwealth Commonwealth Secretariat (Drafting Manual, 2017) common law |
Start (Sec. 2)
Section 2 Interpretation; ban 'means and includes'
|
Ch. 8: Placed in s. 2; strictly forbids 'means and includes' (choose exhaustive 'means' or non-exhaustive 'includes') and bans substantive rules. | Audit with Commonwealth |
| OSCE / OECD OSCE/ODIHR & OECD International Standards international |
Predictability
Accessible, consistent terminology
|
Venice Commission & ODIHR require key terms affecting rights or sanctions to be clearly defined without circularity or hidden obligations. | Audit with OSCE / OECD |
Recitals, Preambles & Purpose Clauses
Whether legislation includes preambles/recitals ('Whereas...') or operative purpose clauses, or relegates justification to external explanatory notes.
| Authority | Core Stance | Official Rule & Citation | Audit |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK OPC United Kingdom (OPC Drafting Guidance, 2024) common law |
Overview only
No preambles; overview clauses instead of manifesto purposes
|
OPC § 1.3: Preambles are not used in Public Bills. Prefer neutral 'overview' clauses over aspirational 'purpose' clauses; policy rationale belongs in Explanatory Notes. | Audit with UK OPC |
| EU JPG European Union (Joint Practical Guide, 2015) supranational |
Mandatory Recitals
Mandatory Recitals ('Whereas') required by Art. 296 TFEU
|
Rules 9–11 & 18: Every EU act must state citations ('Having regard to...') and Recitals ('Whereas:') justifying each main provision, without normative language. | Audit with EU JPG |
| US HOLC / ULC United States (House OLC & Uniform Law Commission) common law |
Discouraged
Discourages 'Findings' unless constitutionally needed
|
HOLC discourages non-operative 'Findings' and 'Purpose' sections unless needed to establish Commerce Clause or other constitutional jurisdiction. | Audit with US HOLC / ULC |
| Canada Legistics Canada (Dept. of Justice Legistics) bijural |
Purpose clause
Rare preambles; functional Purpose sections
|
Legistics: Preambles used sparingly for major constitutional/policy context; Purpose clauses in the body guide purposive interpretation (Interpretation Act s. 12). | Audit with Canada Legistics |
| Australia OPC Australia (OPC Plain English Manual & Directions) common law |
Simplified Outlines
Objects clauses & Simplified Outlines
|
Frequently uses 'Objects of this Act' sections and boxed 'Simplified Outlines' at the start of Parts to orient readers. | Audit with Australia OPC |
| New Zealand LDAC New Zealand (Legislation Guidelines, 2021) common law |
Purpose (Sec. 3)
Standard Purpose section (Sec. 3)
|
LDAC Ch. 3: Most Acts contain an explicit Purpose clause (typically s. 3) used by courts under s. 10 of the Legislation Act 2019. | Audit with New Zealand LDAC |
| Germany HdR Germany (BMJ Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit, 2024) civil law |
External only
No recitals in statute; justification in Gesetzesbegründung
|
HdR Rn. 36: Preambles and recitals do not belong in federal statutes; all policy justification goes into the separate parliamentary Begründung. | Audit with Germany HdR |
| France Légistique France (SGG / Conseil d'État Guide de légistique, 2026) civil law |
Forbidden
Strictly forbidden in statutes (Neutre et normatif)
|
Conseil constitutionnel jurisprudence (Loi de programmation) & Fiche 1.1: Non-normative declarations ('neutrons législatifs') are unconstitutional; reasons belong in the Exposé des motifs. | Audit with France Légistique |
| Commonwealth Commonwealth Secretariat (Drafting Manual, 2017) common law |
Objects clause
Long title + optional Objects clause; rare preambles
|
Ch. 6: Preambles reserved for constitutional or treaty bills; Objects clauses permitted if drafted in clear, non-rhetorical terms. | Audit with Commonwealth |
| OSCE / OECD OSCE/ODIHR & OECD International Standards international |
Explanatory Note
Mandatory Explanatory Note / Impact Assessment
|
ODIHR Guidelines §§ 85–95: Every draft law must be accompanied by an evidence-based Explanatory Memorandum and Regulatory Impact Assessment. | Audit with OSCE / OECD |
Gender-Neutral & Inclusive Drafting
Techniques for eliminating masculine-generic pronouns ('he/his') while preserving syntactic clarity and legal precision.
| Authority | Core Stance | Official Rule & Citation | Audit |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK OPC United Kingdom (OPC Drafting Guidance, 2024) common law |
Noun / 'they'
Mandatory; repeat noun or use singular/plural 'they'
|
OPC § 2.1: Mandatory since 2007. Repeat the noun ('the person'), restructure, or use 'they/their'; avoid awkward 'he or she'. | Audit with UK OPC |
| EU JPG European Union (Joint Practical Guide, 2015) supranational |
Neutral nouns
Gender-neutral titles and epicene formulations
|
ISG & EP Gender-Neutral Guidelines: Prefer neutral nouns ('the applicant', 'the chair') and avoid generic masculine pronouns across language versions. | Audit with EU JPG |
| US HOLC / ULC United States (House OLC & Uniform Law Commission) common law |
Repeat noun
Repeat the noun; avoid masculine generics
|
HOLC & ULC Rule 301: Draft in gender-neutral language primarily by repeating the noun ('the individual') or restructuring to eliminate pronouns. | Audit with US HOLC / ULC |
| Canada Legistics Canada (Dept. of Justice Legistics) bijural |
Bilingual neutral
Mandatory in both English and French co-drafts
|
Legistics ('Gender-Neutral Language'): Repeat nouns, pluralize, or use neutral pronouns in English; use epicene terms and neutral phrasing in French. | Audit with Canada Legistics |
| Australia OPC Australia (OPC Plain English Manual & Directions) common law |
Mandatory
Mandatory; supports 'they' and noun repetition
|
Drafting Direction 2.1: All Commonwealth legislation must be drafted gender-neutrally using noun repetition, 'he or she', or singular 'they'. | Audit with Australia OPC |
| New Zealand LDAC New Zealand (Legislation Guidelines, 2021) common law |
Singular 'they'
Mandatory; endorses singular 'they'
|
NZ PCO drafting conventions prohibit masculine generics and explicitly endorse repeating the noun or using singular 'they'. | Audit with New Zealand LDAC |
| Germany HdR Germany (BMJ Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit, 2024) civil law |
Neutral / Paired
Neutral participles or paired forms; no gender stars
|
HdR Rn. 105–112: Use neutral designations ('Antragstellende', 'Person') or paired masculine/feminine forms; typographic special characters (*, :) are not used in statutes. | Audit with Germany HdR |
| France Légistique France (SGG / Conseil d'État Guide de légistique, 2026) civil law |
Epicene nouns
Epicene nouns ('la personne'); no mid-dot ('point médian')
|
Circulaire du 21 novembre 2017 & Fiche 3.3.2: Use epicene terms ('toute personne') and feminine job titles where appropriate; bans 'point médian' in the Journal officiel. | Audit with France Légistique |
| Commonwealth Commonwealth Secretariat (Drafting Manual, 2017) common law |
Mandatory
Mandatory gender-neutral drafting
|
Ch. 5.6: Recommends repeating the noun, omitting unnecessary pronouns, or recast into the if/then conditional without 'he'. | Audit with Commonwealth |
| OSCE / OECD OSCE/ODIHR & OECD International Standards international |
Inclusive + GIA
Gender-sensitive language & gender impact assessment
|
ODIHR Guidelines §§ 52–56: Combines gender-inclusive statutory language with mandatory gender impact assessment of substantive provisions. | Audit with OSCE / OECD |
Sentence Length, Tabulation & Active Voice
Standards on maximum sentence length, active vs passive voice, and breaking complex conditions into tabulated sub-paragraphs.
| Authority | Core Stance | Official Rule & Citation | Audit |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK OPC United Kingdom (OPC Drafting Guidance, 2024) common law |
Active + Tabular
Short sentences, active voice, tabular '(a), (b), (c)'
|
OPC §§ 3.1–3.4: Write short sentences in active voice; split multiple conditions or elements into paragraphs (a), (b), (c) with a single 'and' or 'or'. | Audit with UK OPC |
| EU JPG European Union (Joint Practical Guide, 2015) supranational |
Translation-ready
Simple syntax for 24-language translation
|
Rules 1, 4 & 5: Keep sentences short and direct without complex subordinate clauses so that all 24 EU language versions carry identical legal meaning. | Audit with EU JPG |
| US HOLC / ULC United States (House OLC & Uniform Law Commission) common law |
Strict hierarchy
Subdivision hierarchy: (a)(1)(A)(i)(I)
|
HOLC Guide: Enforces a strict 5-level indentation and subdivision system ((a) subsection, (1) paragraph, (A) subparagraph, (i) clause, (I) subclause) in active voice. | Audit with US HOLC / ULC |
| Canada Legistics Canada (Dept. of Justice Legistics) bijural |
Vertical lists
Active voice, vertical lists, parallel structure
|
Legistics ('Paragraphing'): Uses vertical paragraphing (a), (b), (c) with strict grammatical parallelism and active voice identifying the legal actor. | Audit with Canada Legistics |
| Australia OPC Australia (OPC Plain English Manual & Directions) common law |
Method steps
<25–30 words avg; method statements & examples
|
Plain English Manual: Targets sentences under 25–30 words, encourages numbered 'Step 1, Step 2' method statements for calculations, and uses inline Examples. | Audit with Australia OPC |
| New Zealand LDAC New Zealand (Legislation Guidelines, 2021) common law |
Reader-first
Plain language, reader-first ordering, flowcharts
|
PCO Plain Language Standard: Orders provisions from core rule to exceptions; encourages tables, formulas, and examples as part of the Act. | Audit with New Zealand LDAC |
| Germany HdR Germany (BMJ Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit, 2024) civil law |
Clear Tatbestand
Avoid 'Schachtelsätze' (nested clauses); max 3–4 Absätze
|
HdR Rn. 65–81: Avoid deeply nested sentences (Schachtelsätze) and nominal style (Nominalstil); structure each § into at most 3–4 numbered Absätze. | Audit with Germany HdR |
| France Légistique France (SGG / Conseil d'État Guide de légistique, 2026) civil law |
1 rule / article
One rule per article or alinéa; concise syntax
|
Fiche 3.1.2: Each article should address a single rule; avoid long enumerated lists and complex cross-references ('renvois en cascade'). | Audit with France Légistique |
| Commonwealth Commonwealth Secretariat (Drafting Manual, 2017) common law |
Coode + Plain
Coode's structure: Case → Condition → Subject → Action
|
Ch. 4 & 5: Modernizes George Coode's legislative sentence structure using active voice, present tense, and tabulated paragraphing. | Audit with Commonwealth |
| OSCE / OECD OSCE/ODIHR & OECD International Standards international |
Foreseeability
Accessibility to non-lawyers and affected persons
|
Venice Commission Rule of Law Checklist § II.B.3: Laws must be intelligible and foreseeable in their effects to ordinary citizens. | Audit with OSCE / OECD |
Amending Existing Legislation
How amendments to existing Acts are expressed: textual strike-and-insert, full subsection restatement, or consolidated recasting.
| Authority | Core Stance | Official Rule & Citation | Audit |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK OPC United Kingdom (OPC Drafting Guidance, 2024) common law |
Textual ('for/sub')
Textual substitution ('for X substitute Y')
|
UK Amending Bills Style Manual: Uses textual amendments ('In section 5, for "X" substitute "Y"'), preferring replacement of whole subsections when changes are dense. | Audit with UK OPC |
| EU JPG European Union (Joint Practical Guide, 2015) supranational |
Textual + Recast
Textual replacement + Recasting (refonte) when frequent
|
Rules 18–21: Amendments are inserted textually into the basic act; when an act is amended substantially, the Interinstitutional Agreement requires Recasting. | Audit with EU JPG |
| US HOLC / ULC United States (House OLC & Uniform Law Commission) common law |
Cut-and-bite
'Cut-and-bite' ('by striking X and inserting Y')
|
Federal bills use cut-and-bite ('is amended by striking ... and inserting ...'); by contrast, ULC and most US states require restating the entire amended section. | Audit with US HOLC / ULC |
| Canada Legistics Canada (Dept. of Justice Legistics) bijural |
Unit replacement
Whole-unit replacement ('is replaced by the following')
|
Canada bans word-by-word cut-and-bite where possible; requires replacing the entire subsection, paragraph, or definition so both languages remain aligned. | Audit with Canada Legistics |
| Australia OPC Australia (OPC Plain English Manual & Directions) common law |
Schedule Items
Amending Schedules with numbered Items
|
Drafting Direction 4.1: All textual amendments are placed in structured Amending Schedules ('Schedule 1—Amendments', Item 1: 'Section 12 / Omit "X", substitute "Y"'). | Audit with Australia OPC |
| New Zealand LDAC New Zealand (Legislation Guidelines, 2021) common law |
Direct replace
Direct textual instruction ('In section X, replace Y with Z')
|
Uses concise plain-English amending formulas ('In section 14(1), replace "X" with "Y"') and automatic official consolidation by the PCO. | Audit with New Zealand LDAC |
| Germany HdR Germany (BMJ Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit, 2024) civil law |
Artikelgesetz
Artikelgesetz (Mantelgesetz) with numbered commands
|
HdR Teil D: Amendments are bundled into an Artikelgesetz where each Artikel amends one principal law via standardized formulas ('wird wie folgt gefasst'). | Audit with Germany HdR |
| France Légistique France (SGG / Conseil d'État Guide de légistique, 2026) civil law |
Textual mod.
Textual modification with quotation marks
|
Fiche 3.2.2: Prefers replacing a complete alinéa or phrase rather than isolated words; encourages codification into thematic Codes. | Audit with France Légistique |
| Commonwealth Commonwealth Secretariat (Drafting Manual, 2017) common law |
Direct textual
Direct textual amendment; avoid non-textual amendments
|
Ch. 14: Strongly favors direct textual amendment over indirect ('referential' or 'non-textual') modification so the statute book stays consolidatable. | Audit with Commonwealth |
| OSCE / OECD OSCE/ODIHR & OECD International Standards international |
Comparative view
Require comparative table / consolidated preview
|
Recommends publishing a side-by-side comparative version (Keeling schedule / redline) whenever an amending bill is laid before parliament. | Audit with OSCE / OECD |
Digital-Ready Legislation & Automated Decision-Making
Modern guidelines on drafting laws that can be implemented by digital public infrastructure or automated decision systems.
| Authority | Core Stance | Official Rule & Citation | Audit |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK OPC United Kingdom (OPC Drafting Guidance, 2024) common law |
CLS patterns
Logical structure & Common Legislative Solutions
|
UK OPC Common Legislative Solutions (2025) standardizes recurring statutory mechanics (information sharing, civil sanctions, digital notices). | Audit with UK OPC |
| EU JPG European Union (Joint Practical Guide, 2015) supranational |
Digital Check
Interoperable Europe & Digital Check in Better Regulation
|
European Commission Better Regulation Toolbox (Tool #28) mandates a 'Digital Check' and 'Once-Only' interoperability assessment during drafting. | Audit with EU JPG |
| US HOLC / ULC United States (House OLC & Uniform Law Commission) common law |
USLM XML
USLM XML schema & machine-readable citations
|
US House and Senate draft directly in United States Legislative Markup (USLM XML), enabling automated classification and point-in-time diffs. | Audit with US HOLC / ULC |
| Canada Legistics Canada (Dept. of Justice Legistics) bijural |
Structured XML
Rules as Code experiments & structured XML
|
Justice Canada pairs bilingual XML drafting with guidance on administrative fairness in automated systems. | Audit with Canada Legistics |
| Australia OPC Australia (OPC Plain English Manual & Directions) common law |
DD 4.3 ADM
Dedicated Drafting Direction 4.3 on Computerised Decisions
|
Australia OPC Drafting Direction 4.3 sets explicit statutory patterns for authorizing, attributing, and reviewing computer-assisted or automated decisions. | Audit with Australia OPC |
| New Zealand LDAC New Zealand (Legislation Guidelines, 2021) common law |
LDAC Ch. 14
Rules as Code & algorithmic accountability
|
LDAC Guidelines address automated decision-making, delegation limits, and logical structure suitable for digital service delivery. | Audit with New Zealand LDAC |
| Germany HdR Germany (BMJ Handbuch der Rechtsförmlichkeit, 2024) civil law |
Digitalcheck
Mandatory Digitalcheck (since 2023) & HdR 2024
|
Germany's Digitalcheck and the 4th edition of the HdR (2024) require clear rules without unnecessary analogue hurdles (e.g., 'Schriftform' vs electronic form). | Audit with Germany HdR |
| France Légistique France (SGG / Conseil d'État Guide de légistique, 2026) civil law |
Algorithm rules
Open algorithm transparency (Code des relations public-admin)
|
Guide de légistique integrates rules on digital administration and algorithmic decision transparency under the CRPA. | Audit with France Légistique |
| Commonwealth Commonwealth Secretariat (Drafting Manual, 2017) common law |
Tech-neutral
Electronic transactions & technology-neutral terms
|
Advises technology-neutral drafting so statutes do not rapidly become obsolete as administrative media evolve. | Audit with Commonwealth |
| OSCE / OECD OSCE/ODIHR & OECD International Standards international |
Open data + HR
Human rights safeguards & open legislative data
|
Requires machine-readable publication of draft laws and human-rights safeguards when laws authorize automated profiling or administrative action. | Audit with OSCE / OECD |