I started this volume by explaining the phenomenon of fragmentation of law and eventually closed my work by presenting a normative argument regarding the need for an exactly opposite process, i.e. defragmentation. Without defragmentation, national law will soon be threatened by similar consequences as described by Martti Koskenniemi with respect to international law in the Report of the International Law Commission. Not only public international law but also national law is jeopardised by the formation of autonomous legal regimes, the self-enclosure of its individual parts and the existence of authorities that apply only one or several legal regulations in the long term, and thus create a practice which need not sufficiently reflect the activities of other authorities and, in particular, related legal regulations. A national legal system, too, could thus become a “universe of inter-connected islands”.

The substance of fragmentation lies in the weakening of the links among legal norms, principles, institutions, sectors and sources of law. The analysis provided in this book shows that there is no single authority which could be considered accountable for the process of the fragmentation of law. This phenomenon can be a consequence of the law-maker’s activity, as well as of steps taken by the authorities that interpret and apply the law. Fragmentation processes can also be augmented by legal doctrine.

An illustrative example of a phenomenon leading to the fragmentation of law is the increasing number of institutions authorised to interpret and apply a specific branch of the law, while not being positioned in a mutual hierarchy. Their interpretation thus cannot be easily modified by a superior authority. For example, inherently vague provisions on fundamental rights comprised in constitutions and international treaties are also interpreted, along with the national courts of the state parties, by international judicial and other supervisory bodies. But the list of such authorities does not end with judicial bodies. In recent decades, various countries have established the institution of Ombudsman, following the example of Northern Europe. While it is not the Ombudsman’s role to rule directly on individual rights, his or her opinions nonetheless generally carry a significant authority.