INTRODUCTION: 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. This paper aims to present Dicey’s formulation of Rule of law; its fallacies ; its applicability in modern times; and Rule of law & The Tinkerbell Effect as analysed by Cameron Stewart. DICEY’S FORMULATION OF RULE OF LAW: “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.) Professor Dicey thus meant Rule of Law as including: i) Absence of arbitrary power (Supremacy of Law) ii) Equality before the law iii) Constitution a consequence of individual‟s rights 1. Absence of arbitrary power (Supremacy of Law): Dicey said wherever there is discretion,
To consider each principles power and their own basis within the British constitution, the rule of law needs to be defined too, but this is somewhat harder to do as it has no set definition. Different theories have attempted to define it though, and most agree with the Diceyan definition.It states that the rule of law contains three core elements - one, the law is absolutely supreme, two, everyone is equal before the law, and three, the Constitution may be found in the ordinary laws of the state.
The United States prides itself on the fact that we have the rule of Law. In other countries such as Japan, the people are expected to obey the government and corporations. If we did not have lawyers, bureaucrats would administer the law. Some complain that we have too many lawsuits, but very few would accept having to obey only the government and the bureaucrats.
The rule of law is whereby the government and all those who govern are bound by the law and everyone must follow the law. Rule of law is also known as nomocracy. Government individual officials are not entitled to make any decision which is not in accordance to the law (Paulsen, Calabresi, McConnell & Bray, 2013). All the citizens are governed by the law including those who make the laws. A. V. Dicey has highly advocated for rule of law in modern times and has popularized it. In history the idea of rule of law can be traced back to the ancient civilizations like China, Mesopotamia, and Rome among others.
The rule of law is treating all persons equally under the law in a society that is not run by any arbitrary power. Everyone is subject to the rules of law, including those in government and court positions; it is consistent throughout society and essential to achieving justice. An example of the rule of law being successfully applied to achieve justice in the
Living under Rule of Law means all of society including institutions are held responsible for law, and law will be enforced by law enforcement. Rule of Law has three main elements. The first element is recognition of underlying concepts and values emphasizing human nobility and value. The second element values and concepts are joined and formalized in writing and they present in revered documents. Finally, the third element substantial laws and directorial law and procedures are put into effect to hold state and agents of important value. The Rule of Law has laws limiting the government from having too much power. Under Autocratic the power is left in the hands of one person. The person who is left all of the power has complete control of decision making, and society has little to no input. Under an autocratic system there is no opposition, because there is no one to oppose. Theocratic government system is a religion base system that names god as a leader. Under theocratic laws are interpreted by someone who is represented. Here the church can take the position of a civil government if
As mentioned in the text “Law is a body of rules established by government officials that bind government, individuals, and nongovernment organization.” These rules were established to maintain stability and justice. The five sources of law are common law, constitutional law, legislation, executive orders and administrative law. Common law is judge made and is grounded in tradition and previous judicial decisions, instead of in written laws. It was a tradition beginning in England as the United States had former ties to England, they were influenced by it. Constitutional law is the body of law that comes out of the courts in cases involving the interpretation of the constitution. The highest court is the Supreme Court.
The rule of law states that nobody is above the law and everyone must follow the law. The citizens as well as the government have to enforce or follow every law and the people feel safe knowing this because they know the government will not just do what it wants. This is the second most important limit behind constitution because laws need to be fair and taken into action in order for the country to have balance and order. When a country has a rule of law, everyone must follow the law even the president must follow these laws also. Therefore the law is even greater than
Rule of law: Everyone has to follow the rules no matter the power they hold, their position, and authority
Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .
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.”
Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces
The most influential definition of the rule of law is that of the A.V. Dicey. In his work he defines the rule of law to be composed of three central elements. The first element states that “no man is punishable or can be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts”. This element is designed to deny to governments any rights to make secret or arbitrary laws, or retrospective penal laws, and to limit the discretionary powers of government” . In order to comply with the requirement, it is stated that the rule must be open, clear, accessible and certain. This is supported by Lord Bingham as he argued that the law must be accessible, clear and predictable as wide discretionary powers would lead to arbitrariness which is against the rule of law. This principle is further illustrated by
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.
‘…If you maltreat a penguin in the London Zoo, you do not escape prosecution because you are the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury.’
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.