Some theorists distinguish between the rule of law and what they call the rule of law (see, for example, Tamanaha 2004:3). They celebrate one thing and denigrate the other. The rule of law should put law above politics. The idea is that the law should be above any powerful person and agency in the country. Domination by law, on the other hand, means the instrumental use of law as an instrument of political power. This means that the state uses the law to control its citizens, but never allows the law to be used to control the state. The rule of law is associated with the devaluation of legality by authoritarian regimes, for example in modern China. Chief Justice John Roberts[21] and Justice Stephen Breyer[22] also spoke and wrote to provide meaning and a better understanding of the rule of law and judicial independence. The law must be superior.

All persons are subject to the law, regardless of their living situation. This principle, which is contained in the United Nations. The Secretary-General`s definition of the rule of law suggests that democratic governance is a prerequisite for the rule of law. [56] Lord Bingham, in his treatise on the rule of law in the United Kingdom, also emphasizes that this principle is part of the rule of law. [57] There is no general agreement that the rule of law exists only in democratic societies. [58] It may be theoretically possible for a benevolent dictatorship to encompass most, if not all, of the other elements of the rule of law and to have no democratic form of government. While this is theoretically possible, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find an example of such an anti-democratic and benevolent dictatorship under the rule of law. The rule of law is fundamental to international peace, security and political stability; achieving economic and social progress and development; and protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals.

It is fundamental to people`s access to public services, the fight against corruption, the fight against abuse of power and the creation of a social contract between people and the state. The rule of law and development are closely linked, and a strengthened rule of law society should be seen as an outcome of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Although many jurists follow Raz 1977 and believe that the rule of law is a purely formal/procedural ideal, others believe in adding a more substantial dimension. They do not believe that it is possible to clearly separate our political ideals, as Raz seems to assume. At least the formal/procedural aspects generate some momentum in a substantive direction. It is often said that generality – proceeding according to a rule – contains the seed of justice (Hart 1961: chap. 8). And stability, publicity, clarity and foresight indicate a fairly fundamental link between the rule of law and the conditions of freedom. However, we must be careful to distinguish between the supposedly substantive requirements of the rule of law and the specification of the deeper values that underlie and motivate the ideal also in its formal and procedural requirements. These ideas claim to bring a touch of reality to our discussions about freedom. In the circumstances of modern life, there may be no escape from legal constraints, but freedom is always possible if people know in advance how the law will work and how they must act to avoid its application.

Knowing in advance how the law will work can make plans and circumvent its requirements (see Hayek 1960: 153 and 156-7). And knowing that the law can be trusted to protect property and personal rights gives every citizen certainty about what they can count on when dealing with others. The rule of law is violated for this reason when the standards applied by civil servants do not correspond to the standards made available to citizens, or when officials act at their discretion and not according to pre-established standards. If such actions become endemic, not only will people`s expectations be disappointed, but they will increasingly be unable to formulate expectations they can rely on, and the horizon of their planning and economic activity will shrink accordingly. In Thailand, a kingdom that has had a constitution since the first attempt to overthrow the system of absolute monarchy in 1932, the rule of law has been a principle rather than a real practice. [ref. needed] Old prejudices and political prejudices were present in all three branches of government with each of their foundations, and the judiciary was formally treated according to the law, but in fact more closely associated with the royalist principles that are still advocated in the 21st century. [ref. needed] In November 2013, Thailand faced new threats to the rule of law when the executive branch rejected a Supreme Court ruling on the selection of senators. [ref. needed] As expressed, this seventh principle encompasses the notions of “institutional” and “decision-making” independence. Institutional independence describes the independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative branches.

[54] Independence is the requirement that a judge decide a particular case solely on the basis of the law and the facts before him or her in the case. [55] Institutional independence and freedom of choice are essential for governance based on the rule of law. Despite these fundamental characteristics, however, there has never been a generally accepted or even systematic formulation of the rule of law (but not for lack of attempts on the part of jurists and political philosophers). The idea that the law should help to channel and restrict the exercise of official authority can be interpreted in different ways; These differences are particularly evident over time and between different communities. In the United Kingdom, the rule of law is 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. [26] [49] [50] In the 19th century, A. V. Dicey, a constitutionalist and jurist, 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. [51] This first principle states the essence of the rule of law, which goes back to Aristotle: the rule of law is a “government by laws and not by men.” [32] In Politics, Aristotle wrote: “It is more appropriate for the law to govern than any other citizen.” [33] American Bar Association President Chesterfield Smith summed up this principle in 1973 when discussing the Watergate controversy and the role of President Richard Nixon: “No one is above the law.” [34] The law applies to all members of society, regardless of their living situation.

What is said here about the connection between dignity and Fuller`s formal principles can be said even more about the connection between procedure and dignity. Procedural principles capture a deep and important sense that the law is a way of governing people who treat them as if they had their own perspective to apply norms to their behaviour and situation. Applying a standard to a human individual is not like deciding what to do with a rabid animal or a dilapidated house. It`s about paying attention to a point of view. As such, it embodies a crucial worthy idea – respect for the dignity of those to whom the norms are applied, as beings capable of explaining themselves. In the second half of the 19th century, Albert Venn Dicey lamented what he saw as a decline in respect for the rule of law in England. The rule of law was a proud tradition that distinguished governing in England both from the executive branch of administrative law in France and from the foolish and abstract certainties of paper constitutions in countries like Belgium, etc. For Dicey, the key to the rule of law was legal equality: the sixth principle of the rule of law could be expanded to add: funds must be made available to resolve disputes without prohibitive costs or undue delays. [67] Among many other points of happiness and liberty which the subjects of Your Majesty of this Kingdom have enjoyed among your royal ancestors, kings and queens of this kingdom, there is none that they have considered dearer and more precious than these, to be guided and governed by the sure rule of law, which gives both to the head and to the limbs.

what is due to them by right, and not by an uncertain or arbitrary form of government. [25] This sixth principle expresses the idea that laws must be enforceable.