The simplest answer to these questions is that the rule of law can never be completely separated from the people who make up our government and society. Rather, the rule of law is an ideal to which we aspire, but sometimes we do not realize. In 1215, Archbishop Stephen Langton gathered the barons in England and forced King John and future rulers and magistrates back to the rule of law, preserving the ancient liberties of Magna Carta in exchange for high taxes. [21] [22] This basis for a constitution was incorporated into the United States Constitution. The principle was also discussed by Montesquieu in L`Esprit des lois (1748). [29] The term “rule of law” appears in Samuel Johnson`s Dictionary (1755). [30] The International Development Law Organization has a holistic definition of the rule of law: in Locke`s story, one of the things people wanted to move away from in the state of nature was to be subject to the unpredictable opinions of others—even if those others thought as seriously and rigorously as possible about natural law. Your thinking might be different from mine, and it could be that your views on the relationship between your interests and mine and your property and interests might be very different from my perspective on the matter, and again very different from the perspective of the next person I met. The whole point of moving from a state of nature to a situation of positive law was to introduce a certain predictability into this picture. The first known use of this English expression dates back to around 1500 AD. [24] Another early example of the term “rule of law” can be found in a petition from the House of Commons to James I of England in 1610: East Asian cultures are influenced by two schools of thought, Confucianism, which advocated good governance as the rule of benevolent and virtuous rulers, and legalism, which advocated strict compliance with the law.

The influence of one school of thought on another has changed over the centuries. A study shows that across East Asia, only South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong have societies that strongly advocate for the rule of law. [61] According to Awzar Thi, a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, the rule of law in Cambodia and most of Asia is weak or non-existent: my actions can hardly be considered subject to the will of another person if I use their rules for my own purposes as to how I might use my knowledge of a natural law. and if that person is unaware of my existence, or the particular circumstances in which the rules will apply to me, or the impact they will have on my plans. (Hayek 1960:152) The extent to which society is bound by the law is bound by processes that secure property rights under legal rules that are applied predictably and are not subject to the whims of certain individuals. Commitment to such processes is the essence of the rule of law. Cass (2004:131) As we saw in Hayek`s discussion (1973), the other side of the coin is the denigration of legislation, precisely because its adoption seems to represent the rule of powerful officials. Legislation is a matter of will. The legislative process produces laws simply because a group of people in an assembly decides that a particular law should be created.

And this is done by the very men – powerful politicians – in whose power the rule of law is supposed to be an alternative. In India, the longest constitutional text in the history of the world has governed the country since 1950. Although the Indian constitution would eventually have to contain details that would limit the possibilities of judicial discretion, the more text there is in a constitution, the more possibilities the judiciary may have to exercise judicial review. [64] According to Indian journalist Harish Khare, “the rule of law or the constitution risks being replaced by the rule of judges.” [65] However, most people who value the rule of law do not accept this approach. If a law is properly drafted (if it is clear, understandable and generally expressed) and is promulgated and promulgated prospectively, and if it is administered impartially and with due process, they will describe this as a perfectly appropriate exercise of the rule of law. In fact, this is what many scholars mean by the rule of law: people are governed by measures that are usually established in advance and also applied according to the conditions under which they were publicly proclaimed. The argument that it should be set aside because it does not sufficiently contrast with the domination of the people seems perverse. The International Rule of Law Network (INPROL) is a network of more than 3,000 legal practitioners from 120 countries and 300 organizations working on rule of law issues in post-conflict and developing countries from a policy, practical and research perspective.

INPROL is based at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) in cooperation with the International Bureau of Narcotic Control and Narcotics of the United States Department of State, the Strategic Police Issues Unit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Unit of the Centre of Excellence for Police Stability and the William and Marry School of Law of the United States. [86] Affiliates include the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the Folke Bernadotte Academy, the International Bar Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Police Women, the International Association of Corrections and Corrections Affairs, the International Court Administration Association, the International Security Sector Advisory Team of the Centre for democratic control of Geneva`s health. Armed Forces, World Association of Women Forensic Experts (WAWFE) and International Institute for Law and Human Rights. Like a stubborn and stupid person who refuses to allow any deviation or questioning of his own rules, even if the situation has actually changed and it turns out to be better for someone to violate these rules. (statesman 294b-c) During. The logical force of Professor Raz`s assertion that I would reject it categorically in favour of a “thick” definition that includes human rights protection within its scope can be seen. A State that brutally oppresses or persecutes parts of its population cannot, in my view, be considered governed by the rule of law, even if the transportation of the persecuted minority to a concentration camp or the forced exposure of female children on the mountainside is the subject of detailed laws duly promulgated and scrupulously observed. (Bingham 2010:67) The Oxford English Dictionary has defined the rule of law as follows:[2] The “formal” interpretation is more widespread than the “substantial” interpretation. Formalists believe that the law must be forward-looking, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and security. In addition, the formal notice does not contain any requirements as to the content of the law. [36] This formal approach allows for the adoption of laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of the “rule of law” in countries that do not necessarily have such laws to protect democracy or individual rights.

The best-known arguments in favor of formal interpretation have been advanced by A.V. Dicey, F.A.Hayek, Joseph Raz and Joseph Unger. Others argue that the rule of law has survived, but has been modified to allow directors to exercise their discretion. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law in this environment was a version of A.V. Dicey`s: “No man is punishable or may lawfully suffer in body or property, except for a clear violation of the law, which is established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing an action before a court of general jurisdiction. As the routing bulletins of workers` compensation boards, public service boards and other agencies emerged, it soon became clear that this would overwhelm the courts and destroy the benefits of specialization that led to the creation of administrative bodies if judges decided all the facts themselves in a dispute (e.g., , extent of injury in a workers` compensation case). Even Charles Evans Hughes, a chief justice of the United States, believed, “You must have an administration, and you must have an administration by administrative officials.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged.