Ambiguity plays a significant role in the process of establishment and enforcement of administrative actions. This is due to the fact that it provides a field for blurring and taking into account more factors that may affect the final decision. In other words, it contributes to the possibility of interpretation and more detailed consideration of a particular case. Thus, ambiguity, despite both positive and negative consequences, is an integral part of the decision-making process.
First, it is worth considering the role of ambiguity in administrative processes. The main advantage of this phenomenon is the provision of flexibility and the possibility of interpreting and applying specific regulatory measures. In particular, this aspect can be practical when considering cases that relate to technological development or social norms. An example of this instance is the FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. It consisted in the fact that during the Fox Television Station broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards, “one musician used an expletive and a presenter used two expletives” (“FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.” n.d., para. 1). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sued the organization for violating the rules on the open display of profane language. At the same time, the mud issued a verdict that this claim was unreasonable and “arbitrary and capricious” (“FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.” n.d. para. 1). This case is an example of the importance of ambiguity since, in it, the court considered the usefulness of the FCC’s actions regarding broadcasters. In the absence of this aspect, Fox Television Stations could lose, despite the insufficient evidence base and the opponent’s policy.
It is worth noting that it is crucial to take into account such an aspect of ambiguity as uncertainty and confusion. This is because the process of making a decision may create a misunderstanding about the current situation and require a deeper study of the issue. An example of a lack of clarity as a consequence of ambiguity is the case of Dan’s City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey. It included proceedings between the car towing company and the owner of the car that was sold by it. Therefore, it was sued over the unauthorized sale of a vehicle regarding the Interstate Commerce Act (“Dan’s City Used Cars v. Pelkey,” n.d.). However, the court decided that this federal law does not affect in detail the sale of abandoned vehicles as in the case that occurred (“Dan’s City Used Cars v. Pelkey,” n.d.). It is worth noting that the ambiguity was caused by the fact that the issue was the subject of a legal dispute, and it was not enough to solve it without resorting to the involvement of the Supreme Court.
In conclusion, ambiguity is particularly valuable in the decision-making process, especially those related to court proceedings. This is because in the establishment and enforcement of administrative actions, it is critical to pay attention to the area for interpretation and a more detailed study of the issues presented. Cases such as FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Dan’s City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey have shown both positive and undesirable consequences that this phenomenon can have when making decisions. Despite this, the absence of ambiguity will significantly limit such an aspect as the flexibility and adaptability of administrative actions, which is caused by the presence of unique factors in each case.
References
Dan’s City Used Cars v. Pelkey. (n.d.). Oyez. Web.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (n.d.). Oyez. Web.