What Is the Rule of Law Uk

The rule of law is an ongoing system of laws, institutions, norms and social engagement that includes: For more examples of what businesses are doing to advance the rule of law, see the Business Framework for the Rule of Law. The rule of law, as presented so far, does not deal with the actual content of the law in the sense of correctness or injustice, provided that the formal imperatives of the rule of law itself are respected. To formulate the same point in a different way, from this point of view, it is necessary to examine the content of the law to decide whether it complies with the principles of the rule of law in terms of clarity, generality, non-retroactivity, etc., but provided that it does, then that is the end of the investigation. In particular, Joseph Raz argued that the rule of law should be limited to formal values – although formal values go beyond the mere maintenance of law and order. These include legislative transparency, non-retroactive law, the independence of the judiciary and broad access to justice, as well as the right to a fair trial. [14] He suggests that the rule of law has become synonymous with general political ideals, distinct from its real meaning: “If the rule of law is the state of good law, then explaining its essence means explaining a complete social philosophy.” [19] Instead, it identifies the principles of “open and relatively stable” legislation and laws according to which the public can live their lives. A resource for leading organizations, model programs, rule of law information, and more. Similar issues were raised by Sir John Laws, who wrote amicably. In an important series of articles, he formulated the role of the courts in the protection of fundamental rights. [187] The details of the argument are not of direct importance to us here.

Suffice it to say for the moment that Sir John Laws has presented a conception essentially based on the rights of law and the role of the judge in cases involving fundamental rights. He postulated a higher-order law that was binding on the elected parliament, with the courts as guardians of fundamental individual rights and so-called structural constitutional rights. [188] The thesis is based on a certain conception of liberalism and individual autonomy, establishing a gap between positive and negative rights. It is believed that the rule of law includes a link with freedom, security and equity. The first of these elements is the material component of the rule of law, while the second and third incorporate the more traditional attributes of the formal rule of law. [189] Public order requires the prevention of crime and the contribution of public authorities, and as such, regardless of the means by which they are achieved or what characteristics the law possesses. This concept of the rule of law can therefore be maintained even by the most tyrannical dictatorship. Such a regime may allow for the normal functioning of courts between private parties and limited interrogation of the government within the dictatorial framework. [1] The question of whether the rule of law can really exist without democracy is a matter of debate.

Freedom of expression and action seems to be what crime prevention allows citizens to do; Therefore, limitation by autocratic means was considered incompatible with the rule of law. In the other direction, however, the picture is much clearer: for democracy to flourish, the rule of law (in this limited sense) must be respected. [7] AV Dicey, who first emphasized the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty, believed that equality before the law was extremely important – that civil servants should be treated by the same court as the ordinary citizen, showing the general masses that the government was not unfairly lenient towards a civil servant. The legal affirmation of the rule of law as an existing constitutional principle and the existing role of the Lord Chancellor in this regard has an important consequence: judges, in their role as companions and decision-makers, are not free to dismiss the rule of law as a meaningless choice of words, the jurisprudential equivalent of motherhood and apple pie. even if they were inclined to do so. You would be obliged to interpret a law in such a way that it does not violate an existing constitutional principle if that were reasonably possible. And the Lord Chancellor`s conduct with respect to this principle would undoubtedly be subject to judicial review in principle. Trevor Allan sees the rule of law primarily as a means of protecting rights from “irresponsible legislative interference” in the face of a government with great authority, supported (usually) by a significant majority in the House of Commons. [15] The rule of law is juxtaposed with the power of the people and the arbitrary power that one man might exercise over the other – the people need protection from the government. [16] This leads him to support the “fundamental characteristics” of the rule of law, including the actions of the government within its legal powers. [17] Allan notes that this is not inconsistent with a wide margin of appreciation on the part of the government, and then accepts Raz`s complaint that too broad a definition is to explain a complete social philosophy. Instead, it chooses a design that isn`t as broad but not as limited as Raz`s.

[18] Authorities must act within the framework of the law conferred on them, a second approach to the rule of law. All actions taken outside the law are ultra vires and cannot be sanctioned by the courts. Entick vs. Carrington was an important step in terms of English law, with camden LJ`s famous saying: “If it`s a law, we`d find it in our books, but such a law never existed in this country.” [8] [9] Joseph Raz identifies the government that follows the law as tautology: if the will of those who are part of the government were expressed outside its legal constraints, they would no longer act like the government […].