(1) The first element is the ability of legal norms, norms or principles to guide people in the conduct of their affairs. People must be able to understand and comply with the law. (2) The second element of the rule of law is effectiveness. The law should actually guide people, at least for the most part. In Joseph Raz`s sentence, “People should be governed by and obey the law.” (3) The third element is stability. The law should be reasonably stable to facilitate coordinated planning and action over time. (4) The fourth element of the rule of law is the primacy of legal power. The law should decide both civil servants, including judges, and ordinary citizens. The rule of law refers to the idea that everyone in a society agrees to be governed by the laws of a society and to follow them. Of course, the exact meaning of the rule of law may vary depending on the context and the speaker. Here are some textual definitions of the rule of law and what they may mean in certain contexts. The preamble to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states: “The governments of like-minded European countries that have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law”. Ideas about the rule of law have existed since at least the 4th century BC.
At the heart of political and legal thought, when Aristotle distinguished the “rule of law” from “that of an individual”. In the 18th century, the French political philosopher Montesquieu developed a doctrine based on the rule of law that opposed the legitimate authority of monarchs to the whims of despots. Since then, it has profoundly influenced the liberal thinking of the West. At its most fundamental level, the rule of law is the concept that government and citizens know and obey the law. Although the popularization of the term “rule of law” in modern times is generally attributed to A.V. In particular, laws must be open and clear, of general form, universally applicable and recognizable to all. In addition, legal requirements must be such that people can be guided by them; They must not impose unreasonable cognitive or behavioural demands on the people they are supposed to follow. Therefore, the law should be relatively stable and include certain requirements that people can consult before acting, and legal obligations should not be set retroactively. In addition, the law should remain internally consistent and, if not, provide legal means to resolve any contradictions that may arise. Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S.
Constitution has adopted a particular interpretation of the “rule of law” and, if so, which one. For example, John Harrison argues that the word “law” is defined in the Constitution simply as what is legally binding rather than being “defined by formal or substantive criteria,” and that judges therefore have no discretion to decide that laws do not meet such unwritten and vague criteria.  Law professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the authors of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law.  No being, body or association of human beings has any other right to obtain special and exclusive benefits or privileges different from those of the Community than those resulting from the consideration of services rendered to the public; And since this title is not hereditary in nature, nor transferable to children, descendants or blood relatives, the idea of a man born as a judge, legislator or judge is absurd and unnatural.  The rule of law, mechanism, process, institution, practice or standard that supports the equality of all citizens before the law ensures a non-arbitrary form of government and generally prevents the arbitrary use of power. Arbitrariness is typical of various forms of despotism, absolutism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Despotic governments even include highly institutionalized forms of government in which the entity at the top of the power structure (such as a king, junta, or party committee) is able to act without the constraints of the law if it so desires. The Honourable Kevin Lindgren, a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia, was appointed Associate Professor of the Rule of Law at the University of Sydney in 2012.
He has lectured extensively on the concept of the rule of law and is the author of an article entitled “The Rule of Law: Its State of Health in Australia”. The Institute has also produced a short series of lectures on our YouTube channel to capture essential aspects of Professor Lindgren`s lectures, such as: Of course, the term “rule of law” can be invoked in various situations. A simple Google search today shows that President Donald Trump`s cabinet is “undermining the rule of law”; than if Roe v. Wade is overthrown, “we should be concerned about the rule of law”; and that “Republicans for the Rule of Law” have shown their support for Rep Justin Amash, who has called for Trump`s impeachment. The idea that the rule of law is a foundation of how we act as a nation transcends ideological boundaries. James Wilson said at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787: “Laws can be unjust, can be reckless, can be dangerous, can be destructive; and yet not to the point of being so unconstitutional as to justify the judges` refusal to give effect to them. George Mason agreed that judges “could overturn an unconstitutional law. But as far as any law, no matter how unjust, oppressive or harmful, is concerned, which did not clearly fall within this description, because they consider that they would be in need of giving it free rein.  Chief Justice John Marshall (as well as Joseph Story J.) took a similar position in 1827: “If its existence as a law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what the qualities of a law are.  In the United Kingdom, the rule of law has been a long-standing principle of how the country is governed, dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Bill of Rights of 1689.    In the 19th century, A.
V. Dicey, a constitutional scholar and lawyer, wrote about the two pillars of the British Constitution in his classic Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885); These two pillars are the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty.  In 1959, an event was held in New Delhi at which the International Commission of Jurists issued a statement on the fundamental principle of the rule of law. The event was composed of more than 185 judges, lawyers and law professors from 53 countries. This later became known as the Delhi Declaration. During the statement, they explained what the rule of law entails. These include certain rights and freedoms, an independent judiciary and social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity. The only aspect that is not included in the Delhi Declaration is that the rule of law requires that the legislature be subject to judicial review.  Bondage positions and methods Kenyans are gullible in their flogging of some of us who defend the rule of law. They forgot that Fred Matiang`i, Gordon Kihalangwa and Joseph Boinnet violated Article 10 and Chapter 6, were found guilty and fined. All three are still in public charge! ^DoS This article contains text from a work with free content. Licensed under CC BY-SA License Statement/Permission.
democratic system is not always based on the simple majority rule […].