The Constitutional Principle Of The Rule Of Law

The Rule of Law is the idea that the power of government officials should be defined and limited by laws while Rule of Force related to rules dictated by an authoritative power through intimidation and military backing. Rule of Law allows citizens to understand the powers held in government as well as their individual rights, this promotes equality and mutual understanding between the two parties; it ensures government officials are subject to the same Constitutional fundamental rights as citizens.

Chapter one of the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, and Jonathon Kingsbury discuses a historical overview of the United States, or better known as the U.S. Constitution. To elaborate, the textbook educates the reader on why the U.S. Constitution was created, as well as what its main purpose is. Most people know that the U.S. Constitution was not necessarily an original thought by the United States. In fact, it was greatly influenced by the English document known as the Magna Carat (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 13). In addition, the U.S. Constitution was fashioned, mainly, as a binding document to prevent any one person from having complete power in the United

The rule of law in Australia underpins the way the Australian government and society are governed. It is intertwined in the Constitution, making it an important piece of framework within the Australian Federal legal system.1 The rule of law is not a legal rule but more like the rule of “law”, free from legal constraints and separate from the rule of power such as legislation. The rule of law signifies that all government agencies, bodies and individuals should never be considered above the law, and always considered as a subject to it.2

The Rule of law is considered to be a fundamental principle in the constitution of any country. A uniqueness attributed to this principle is that it is regarded as multi-faceted; there has been a multitude of definitions and at times contradictory to each other. The version of the rule of law which I will discuss is the theory of A.V Dicey. I prefer Dicey 's version simply because unlike Joseph Raz 's theory which dictates many principles, Dicey 's version emphasises three distinct concepts. The First being; No man could be punished or lawfully interfered with by the authorities except for breaches of law. In other words, all government actions must be authorised by law. Secondly, no man is above the law and everyone, regardless of rank, is subject to the ordinary laws of the land. Finally, there is no need for a bill of rights because the general principles of the constitution are the results of judicial decisions determining the rights of the private person.

Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the

Within the rule of law there are formal and substantive theories. Firstly, a formal theory literally is ‘shape’. Meaning what is the shape or form of law? The ‘form’ of law is

Judicial review is a process that allows the courts to determine legality of decision made by a public authority, and in some cases, overrule those decisions. In essence, Judicial review is a part of the separation of powers as it allows the judiciary to exercise control over the executive branch of government. The rationale behind a judicial review is to be able to review the decisions of the government in order to maintain an order of checks and balances under the rule of law. The courts’ justification for a judicial review is that they are giving effect to the true function of a democratic parliament of ensuring that the power it grants to the government including public authorities is exercised legally, reasonably, and fairly. In other words, if a public authority did not exercise their powers in such manner, it is to be considered acting ultra vires or beyond the powers granted by parliament. As a result, a claim has to be made in accordance with Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules to challenge the lawfulness of an enactment, decision, action, or omission with relation to the exercise of a public function. A claim for judicial review is a procedure whereby an individual or pressure group seeking to challenge the lawfulness of public action applies to the Administrative Court (which is part of the High Court) to determine whether the action was lawful, and asks the court to grant one, or a combination of remedies. These remedies include quashing order

In this particular scope will consist of critical examination of the aims and objectives of Article 6(1) and what it transcends to achieve within the courts. This will be aimed to identify the implementation of potential procedural safeguards in various situations, identifying concerning issues relating to the wording of Article 6. This will be differentiated through the common law doctrine of Natural Justice in whether the interpretation and applicability of the Convention appears to innovate upon the common law doctrine.

to the law. The rule of law often is stated to be one of the

The rule of law is seen as being one of the most fundamental components of the UK constitution as well as being a principle that is concerned with restricting parliamentary action. Though the rule of law is seen to be a component in the constitution; the actual meaning of the rule of law has been very problematic to interpret. This is considerably down to the fact that it means different things to different people as since the nineteenth century, academics, politicians and judges have proposed diverse definitions and explanations in regards to the rule of law and the role it upholds in the UK constitution.

Rule of law in simplest terms means law rules, that is, law is supreme. The term “Rule of law‟ is derived from the French phrase “la principle de legalite” (the principle of legality) which means a government on principle of law and not of men. Rule of Law is a viable and dynamic concept and, like many other concepts, is not capable of any exact definition. It is used in contradistinction to rule of man. Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice in King James I‟s reign is said to be the originator of this principle. However, concrete shape was given to it by Professor A.V. Dicey, for the first time in his book “Law of the Constitution” (1885) in the form of three principles.

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.

One of the values we have adopted from the Magna Carta is the idea of rule of law. Rule of law is the idea that the people who

If the judiciary are intentionally straying into matters of governmental policy then they as unelected, impartial adjudicators should only do so when cases arise that call for such action, potentially when governmental action threatens the rule of law – a right afforded to them as a constitutional check on governmental power. While the judiciary can be viewed as in a constant skirmish with the Legislature and the Executive much of the judiciary’s power to interoperate statutes liberally comes from powers delegated to it by parliament .

The rule of law represents a challenge to State authority and power, demanding both that power be granted legitimately and that their exercise is according to law. The law is not autonomous but rests on the support of those it governs. Whilst the rule of law places law above everyone, it remains paradoxically subjected to the ultimate judgment of the people. The rule of law is considered the most fundamental doctrines of the constitution of UK. The constitution is said to be founded on the idea of the rule of law.