Empirical research shows that legal loopholes can be vague because of their liquidity. In some difficult cases

whether there are legal loopholes is controversial. The accuracy of the identification and determination of legal loopholes is directly related to the correctness of the verdict

which must be taken seriously. To solve this problem

summing up and setting up the procedures and standards for legal loophole identification

and realizing uniform loophole evaluation through procedural rationality have become the practical path. Under normal circumstances

if interests of the plaintiff claimed in a pending case should be given by the law but in fact are not given or not properly protected

and at the same time legal interpretation is still unable to mend such faults of the law or regulation through conflict rules doesn’t work

it should be considered that there are loopholes in the law. The legal loophole of rule paradox is special

because the law protects pending interests

and there is no loophole in its form. It is just that the application of the rule in a pending case leads to an unjust conclusion

which means the rule may lose its value of being observed. In such cases

we should determine whether the conclusion violates justice to an "intolerable degree" according to the Radbruch formula

so as to judge whether there is a legal loophole of rule paradox.