The Rule Of Law In Civil And Common Law Traditions

In the course preserving the law and order, the effectiveness of the system designed to administer justice cannot be over emphasized. Faith in the adjudicatory system by the populace is often underscored by the satisfaction the populace derives from it in terms of its administration of justice. Hence it is pertinent to analyze the approach certain countries are employ in their respective adjudicatory process.

This paper will cover topics such as; what a court is and what the purpose of the court is. This paper will define the dual court system. In addition this paper will describe the role that early legal codes, the common law and the precedent played in the development of courts. And lastly this paper will identify the role of the courts in the criminal justice system today.

The social constructs of law relate it to be something of complexity, where one’s rights and protections are imagined to be difficult to find. The law is an historic and modern aspect of the world, ensuring uniformity. It is important for the law to become not only a creator, but also a product of its environment. For society to accept the law and for its effectiveness, it must be made in ways reflect societal values.

The official version of the law is the basis on which the law prides itself to be. It claims to be neutral, having no prejudice against race, sex, gender, or any other distinguishing characteristics. The law compares itself to a blindfolded woman as historically women who have been seen as virgins who are pure, uninfluenced, and have no biases. The official version of the law is bound by one rule and that is everyone is subjected to the law and will be treated equally under it. Stare Decisis, a well known term to legal scholars is used define how judges are bound by precedent which means they must treat all cases the same and thus leading to the basis of the official version which is predictable, unbiased law. My focus in this paper is to

Brien’s (1999) statement associates the concept of the Rule of Law with democracy and liberty, thus evoking its egalitarian and anti-authoritarian properties. The Rule of Law is widely considered a key element to democracy, and has also been touted as a critical element in promoting human rights and “good law” in society (Licht, Goldschmidt & Schwartz, 2007). Brien (1999) refers to the Rule of Law as “ideal”, suggesting that the need for

Universal theories state that, regardless of race, origin, religious beliefs or culture, every human being is entitled to basic rights. These rights are inherent to the fundamental nature of that person, and are meant to be implemented transnationally, without bias. The universal theory of legalism states that the “only way to create social harmony is through legal rule”, and that there cannot be an expectation on individuals to regulate themselves (Juric). The regulation of individuals is achieved through government. However, the government agents are also subject to the law. This notion is known as the Rule of Law and states that no individual is above the law. Legalism proposes “that the law is not arbitrary, they are rooted in reason and agreed upon by all of us” (Juric). Legalism makes the assertion that the only creditable government is democratic in nature. Through a majority vote democratic governments give the individuals of the society the ability to choose the legislative party that is responsible for creating the laws that the citizens abide by. In this way, legalism states that citizens have influence over the laws and policies of their country. In order for Legalism to be considered a valid universal human rights theory, it must be accepted by all nations. This paper discusses the notion that the universalist theory legalism is inoperative because of its Cultural limitations, and difficulty implementing Human rights Standards. There is a strong Western

Very vaguely, the rule of law is: “the name commonly given to the state of affairs in which a legal system is legally in good shape.”

citizens are under a duty to obey the same laws, and there can be no

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)

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”, said Dicey in 1885, means “the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative ,or even wide discretionary authority on the part of government.” (THE LAW OF CONSTITUTION 198 (8th ed.)

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.

Nowadays every legal system wants to achieve justice. Different legal traditions in the world have given a different meaning of this concept by following one of the two legal systems: a civil law system and a common law system. The civil law system emerged from Roman law and throughout many centuries has been developed in continental Europe and often is called a “continental legal system”, achieving its prominence through development of aqui communitare in Europe. The common law system emerged in England during the Anglo-Saxon period and was developed by British colonies, reaching its peak in the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

In this paper, I will propose that it is better to look at whether a law is legally valid or not through the perspective of natural law theory as opposed to positivist theory. My argument consists mostly of the language of “improvement” which can only exist based on the theory of natural law which states that law is something which has an objective truth behind it. Only when there is an objective mark to hit can there be hits and misses and I believe that positivism disregards the possibility of hits and misses entirely. So, my argument is that it makes more sense to consider legal validity of a law from the perspective of natural law rather than positive law because it includes not only the previously set up legal system when considering validity, but it also considers the general idea of some kind of morality as well. A sub argument is that the starting legal system must have had some basis by which to have been created and accepted which must be some form or notion of morality.

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.