Basic Rule of Law Meaning

“. Much of the content of the rule of law can be summed up in two points: the American democratic system is not always based on simple majority rule. There are certain principles that are so important to the nation that the majority has agreed not to interfere in these areas. For example, the Bill of Rights was adopted because concepts such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, equal treatment and due process were considered so important that without constitutional amendment, even a majority should not be allowed to change it. In 1215, Archbishop Stephen Langton gathered the barons in England and forced King John and future rulers and magistrates to return to the rule of law, preserving the old freedoms by the Magna Carta in exchange for high taxes. [21] [22] This basis of a constitution has been incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. Or you might see that the term undermines the rule of law. This means that someone is acting in a way that has the potential to destroy the general consensus that everyone in society will follow the same rules. Studies have shown that weak rule of law (e.g.

discretionary enforcement of regulations) discourages investment. Economists, for example, have found that an increase in discretionary enforcement of regulations has led U.S. companies to abandon international investment. [92] U.S. military doctrine and the U.S. government`s Inter-Agency Agreement (EPA) could view the rule of law as a principle of governance.[60] The rule of law is a permanent system of laws, institutions, norms, and community engagement that allows most people who value the rule of law not to accept this approach. If a law is properly formulated (if it is clear, comprehensible and generally expressed) and if it is promulgated prospectively, and if it is administered impartially and in accordance with due process, they will call it a fully appropriate exercise within the framework of the rule of law. In fact, this is what many scholars mean by the rule of law: people are governed by measures that are predetermined in general terms and also applied according to the conditions under which they were publicly proclaimed. The argument that it should be set aside because it is not sufficiently opposed to human domination seems perverse. A country that adheres to the rule of law ensures that – Is it reasonable to use the rule of law to assess how a society responds to emergencies? It is often assumed that emergency situations require more restrictive and procedurally complex forms of State action than those normally required. In fact, a number of possibilities have been discussed (Scheuerman 2006).

The first is to insist, in the name of the rule of law, that existing constitutional guarantees remain in force; After all, they were developed for this, and in these situations they are the most urgent. Alternatively, in an emergency, one could count on a general spirit of flexibility and circumstantial sensitivity in government action, which is also encouraged in normal times. With this second option, the rule of law is not a major obstacle to the flexibility of state action in the face of threats. As a third option, one could try to preserve something like the rule of law by establishing in advance specific legal rules for emergency situations – for example, rules that suspend ordinary guarantees of civil liberties or give officials broad discretion for measures that would normally be regulated by general legal standards. (Machiavelli proposed a version of this in his Discourses (1517) and praised the institution of the dictator in the Roman Republic.) This option has the advantage of predictability; but its drawback is that it advocates a kind of lighter rule of law that can eventually infect or replace the concept of the rule of law that is supposed to be normally applicable. The principle was also discussed by Montesquieu in L`Esprit des Lois (1748). [29] The term “rule of law” appears in Samuel Johnson`s Dictionary (1755). [30] Therefore, it can be said that the rule of law is not limited to government and citizens who know and obey the law. The rule of law includes other concepts such as checks and balances on the exercise of governmental power, the independence of the judiciary, the presumption of innocence, access to justice and the right to a fair trial. The rule of law does not depend on a separation of powers along the lines of the United States.

In a parliamentary system, for example, the powers of the executive and the legislature are combined; Procedures such as votes of no confidence and regular elections serve to control the party that controls parliament. The crucial point is that any form of government must have a system to ensure that no one in government has as much power as it can act above the law. Elizabeth Cady Stanton`s quote also highlights another important aspect of the rule of law. People must be asked to obey the laws that they can and will obey. When laws are impossible – or even difficult – to follow, citizens` compliance with the law will begin to erode. The courts play a key role in upholding the rule of law, particularly when hearing complaints from minority groups or persons representing minority views. Equality before the law is such an essential part of the U.S. system of government that when a majority, intentionally or unintentionally, violates the rights of a minority, the court may deem it appropriate to hear both sides of the controversy in court.

In addition to the form of the rules themselves, there is also the nature of their presence in society. The rule of law provides that the law functions as a relatively stable set of standards available as public knowledge. It requires that laws be public and that they be promulgated long before individuals are responsible for their compliance. These are characteristics that stem in part from the fact that laws are supposed to guide behavior, which they cannot do if they are secret or retroactive. But it is not only a question of pragmatism of governance. Laws go in two directions: (i) they impose requirements on ordinary citizens that they must meet; and (ii) instructing officials on what to do in the event of non-compliance by citizens. Laws that are secret and retroactive to the extent that (i) are concerned can continue to function effectively with respect to (ii). The constitutional requirements for publicity and foresight therefore have an additional meaning: they require that citizens be informed of what is required of them and that any basis on which they are held accountable be held accountable. Another popular topic: the maintenance of the rule of law. This means that someone or something follows the laws and applies them equally to all people, including the powerful.

In Canada, administrative law is the rule of law, an underlying constitutional principle that requires that government be governed by law and that all public officials be held accountable for their actions before the ordinary courts. The International Development Law Organization (ADA) is an intergovernmental organization with a focus on the promotion of the rule of law and development. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law in this environment has been a version of V.A. Dicey: “No human being is punishable by law or legally induced to suffer from body or property, except for a significant violation of the law established in the ordinary legal manner in the ordinary courts of the land.” That is to say, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing an action before a court of general jurisdiction. As lists of workers` compensation boards, utility boards, and other agencies came into being, it quickly became clear that it was overwhelming for the courts to leave the benefits of specialization, which led to the creation of administrative bodies in the first place, decide for themselves whether judges should decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (for example, the extent of a violation in a workers` compensation case).