These provisions have many different names, but are typically noted as: ;  In most legislatures internationally, these provisions of the bill simply give the legislature's goals and desired effects of the law, and are considered non substantive and non-enforceable in and of themselves. However in the case of the European Union, a supranational body, the recitals in Union legislation must specify the reasons the operative provisions were adopted, and if they do not, the legislation is void.. This has been interpreted by the courts as giving them a role in statutory interpretation with Klimas, Tadas and Vaiciukaite explaining "recitals in EC law are not considered to have independent legal value, but they can expand an ambiguous provision's scope. They cannot, however, restrict an unambiguous provision's scope, but they can be used to determine the nature of a provision, and this can have a restrictive effect." Also known as canons of construction, canons give common sense guidance to courts in interpreting the meaning of statutes. Most canons emerge from the common law process through the choices of judges. Proponents of the use of canons argue that the canons constrain judges and limit the ability of the courts to legislate from the bench. Critics argue that a judge always has a choice between competing canons that lead to different results, so judicial discretion is only hidden through the use of canons, not reduced. Textual canons are rules of thumb for understanding the words of the text. Some of the canons are still known by their traditional Latin names. Substantive canons instruct the court to favor interpretations that promote certain values or policy results. Deference canons instruct the court to defer to the interpretation of another institution, such as an administrative agency or Congress. These canons reflect an understanding that the judiciary is not the only branch of government entrusted with constitutional responsibility. Critics of the use of canons argue that canons impute some sort of "omniscience" to the legislature, suggesting that it is aware of the canons when constructing the laws. In addition, it is argued that the canons give a credence to judges who want to construct the law a certain way, imparting a false sense of justification to their otherwise arbitrary process. In a classic article, Karl Llewellyn argued that every canon had a "counter-canon" that would lead to the opposite interpretation of the statute. The common textual canons of statutory construction employed in American jurisprudence are: (1) Ejusdem generis -" "of the same kinds, class, or nature,"" " (2) Expressio unius est exclusio alterius - ""the express mention of one thing excludes all others,"  (3) Noscitur a sociis -" "a word is known by the company it keeps,"(4) "In pari materia - "upon the same matter or subject," and (5) Common, technical, legal, or trade definition.