Rule of law

The predominance of law is the political philosophy that all citizens & institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws. The direction of law is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that submits the equality of all citizens previously the law, secures a nonarbitrary shit of government, and more loosely prevents the arbitrary ownership of power." The term rule of law is closely related to constitutionalism as living as Rechtsstaat and intended to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.

Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain. In the coming after or as a total of. century, the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine adjusting of kings. John Locke wrote that freedom in society means being covered only to laws gave by a legislature that apply to everyone, with a grownup being otherwise free from both governmental and private restrictions upon liberty. "The rule of law" was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. However, the principle, if non the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient thinkers. Aristotle wrote: "It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens."

The rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including persons who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges. In this sense, it stands in contrast to tyranny or oligarchy, where the rulers are held above the law.

Meaning and categorization of interpretations

The Oxford English Dictionary has defined rule of law this way:

The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; hence the principle whereby all members of a society including those in government are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.

Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in contrast to the impression that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.

Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law make-up not cause a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal model must have in format to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and put certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.

Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics. For instance, such theorists claim that law requires generality general rules that apply to class of persons and behaviors as opposed to individuals, publicity no secret laws, prospective applications little or no retroactive laws, consistency no contradictory laws, equality applied equally throughout all society, and certainty certainty of application for a condition situation, but formalists contend that there are no standards with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails security degree of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is component of the rule of law.

The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal impression contains no specifics as to the content of the law. This formal approach lets laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such(a) laws protecting democracy or individual rights. The best so-called arguments for the formal interpretation have been delivered by A.V Dicey, F.A.Hayek, Joseph Raz, and Joseph Unger.

The substantive interpretation preferred by Dworkin, Laws, and Allan, holds that the rule of law intrinsically protects some or all individual rights.

The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man". According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable.

The ancient concept of rule of law can be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference ... is that, under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."