More handpicked essays just for you.
What is the importance of the rule of law
The need for the separation of powers
The rule of law and its importance
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
We live in a very diverse society, observance of the rule of law is the best way that can guarantee that our basic human rights are preserved, successful government at home is operating and a fair progress on the international level is maintained. Basic principles of the rule of law go back to Dicey’s theory, which states that there should be an absolute supremacy of regular law, no one should be above the law and that the Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of land. There is no clear meaning of the rule of law; therefore it is essential that the government maintains the basic principles of the rule of law that were established by the philosophers who feared the concentration of power in one’s hands, on order to prevent tyranny. Rule of Law cannot exist without a transparent legal system, the main components of which are a clear set of laws that are freely and easily accessible to all, strong enforcement structures, and an independent judiciary to protect citizens against the arbitrary use of power by the state, individuals or any other organisation. Only if each branch has influence and retraining functions on each other, can the parliamentary machine function properly and give the effect of the rule of law without imposing any tyrannical or arbitrary power by a specific institution, which would infringe the main principles of the rule of law. The issue would arise if there would be very weak separation of powers with a strong concept of parliamentary sovereignty at the same time. The power of judicial review ensures that officials act within the scope of their legal powers and that individuals have an effective way of obtaining remedies if their rights were violated. Although UK is said to have an efficient system of...
... middle of paper ...
...horities.
However, it is important to realize that in the absence of a codified constitution, there is no formal separation of powers. The functions of legislature and executive are inter-related and ministers are members of both. Overlaps do occur, which can question its effectiveness in protecting the rule of law. Unlike US, in the UK, the PM is always the leader of the leading party, which makes scrutiny much harder and makes the likelihood of exploitation of powers more likely. Parliament is always a supreme legislating body, and British judges have no power to question the validity of the Acts of Parliament. The impact of the EU, especially in protecting the basic human rights due to the absence of the UK’s equivalent, and in this sense, the separation of powers doesn’t play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law subject to the interests of minorities.
In Donald Robinson’s, Slavery in the Structure of the American Revolution, he eloquently articulates the original purpose of separation of power in the United States of America: to protect private interests and freedom. Considering that separation of power is viewed as a means to prevent a unitary and centralized government, the issue of slavery influenced the adoption of separation of power. While equality is a quintessential reflection of America, the power of states’ rights prevents states from being consistent with American values. In this paper, I will examine the principle concept of separation of power in the context of ensuring private interests, in particular, the institution of slavery and segregation. I will argue how decentralized political power fundamentally prevents unity within a nation because of its intent to protect the private interests in the United States of America.
... a very strong separation between Executive and Legislature, and the Judiciary – Members of Parliament and Government ministers cannot sit in the Judiciary and interpret the law. There is not, however, such a strict separation between the Executive and the Legislature, as the Executive sits in Parliament as well.
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
The ideology of parliamentary sovereignty represents a constitutional order that acknowledges the necessary power of government, while placing legal limits and conditions upon its excise due to the Rule of Law, developed by the judiciary in cases such as Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765. The Diceyan theory represents a definition of parliamentary sovereignty. A general summary recalls that,
However, this should not necessarily disqualify the EU from being treated as a democratically legitimate body. Andrew Moravcsik believes concern about the EU’s ‘democratic deficit’ to be misplaced. Judged against existing democracies, rather than ideal parliamentary democracy, the EU is legitimate. Most critics overlook the relatively optimistic conclusion because they analyse the EU in ideal and isolated terms, drawing comparisons between the EU and a utopian democracy. This use of idealistic standards is leads many analysts to overlook the extent to which delegation and insulation are widespread trends in modern democracies.
To Conclude, One can say that there are restraints on Parliament, and these do affect its supremacy, and sovereignty. However, in my opinion we can say that although these restrictions are there, Parliament remains the supreme law maker and highest body within this country even over Europe. I believe this as Parliament still has the power to pass a statute allowing us to leave the EU, until this is taken from Parliament, I feel it is still the most powerful body in this country.
This essay addresses the criticism firstly by clarifying the concept of democratic legitimacy and democratic deficit. It also introduces pertinent theories with a focus on the constructive and ideological complexity of the EU. Then it explains the contextual and normative relation between the EU and democracy from its history and some of the major treaties. The essay continues to the debates between advocates and critics of the EU’s democratic legitimacy, yet with a focus on the latter, further dealing with two main dimensions of institutional flaws affecting the legislative process and the insignificance of European citizens to the EU regime. After remarking conventional and possible measures to alleviate the deficiency, it draws a conclusion that the de...
The most significant and challenge to the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty was Britain’s membership of the European Community in 1972. The European Communities Act 1972 brought with it the requirement that European Law be given priority over domestic courts over conflicting issues of national law. This notion was a direct affront to parliamentary sovereignty, which required that if a later statute, contradicted and earlier statute, which sought to incorporate European Law into English Law, then the later statute should impliedly repeal the earlier statute. Therefore the European Communities act imposed a substantive limit on the legislative ability of subsequent Parliaments.
The RP helps to keep our powers separated which avoiding the judicial tyranny. After the formation of the two houses of parliament, which called the legislature, the creation of our statutes prevail to the RP. In the case of De Kayser, RP and statute found to co-exist and statute prevails, for the reason that the representatives in the House of Commons are elected from the public in order to create statute to help the development of the country. Moreover, the constitutional conventions are also part of our unwritten constitution and have conflict to the royal prerogative. Some of the RP powers are included to the conventions such as the automatic granting of royal assent, which the Queen should sign after the convention. Finally, the fire brigades union case mentioned that the executive cannot exercise the prerogative in a way which would derogate from the due fulfilment of statutory duty. The data indicates that the current prime minister, has power to overrule the UK’s parliament recent vote of a military intervention in Syria by using the RP which bypass any common decision of acts of war. Generally, powers such as the parliamentary immunity and prerogative powers, destroy the equality and justice of the society, by giving permission, to avoid the soft process of the legitimate society and finally breaking the rule of law. Supporting this argument, a member of parliament, Jack Straw strongly
This exercises the idea of independence within ‘different functions of government’; it is represented by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Separating the three prevents a dangerous occurrence where power is entirely centralized in one group.... ... middle of paper ... ... Carl F. Stychin and Linda Mulcahy, Legal Methods and Systems, (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2010).
It is definitely arguable that in order to promote democracy in it's current format there must be rule of law. The law making process has fundamentally seperate divisions, with Parliament fulfilling the function of legislature, national government fulfilling the executive and the courts representing the judicracy. By dividing the law-making process this prevents one group or person from collecting too much power which in turn helps prevents misuse.
Judicial review seeks to enforce and uphold constitutional doctrines which govern the UK’s uncodified constitution by scrutinising administrative action. One constitutional function of judicial review is to enforce the rule of law. It can be argued, in defining the rule of law as “negative value...designed to minimised the harm to freedom and dignity which the law may cause in its pursuit of its goals” Joseph Raz characterised judicial review. The principle of which states the executive is to be ruled by the law and subject to it.
In Contrast, the United Kingdom differs from many others in not being embodied in a written document but in a complex mixture of institutional practices; that is, of history, custom, tradition, and politics reflected in conventions, procedures, and protocols as well as within the body of statute and common law. Because on many matters British government depends less on legal rules and safeguards than upon political and democratic principles, the UK constitution is well-known to have a political constitution. A political constitution is defined as one where those wielding power are held accountable through political means by other institutions. To be effective, there must be a strong and vital political discussion and the potential for significant independence. A legal constitution counts, on the other hand, on enforcing accountability through legal processes and, likewise, requires significant independence and an understanding that law serves as an instrument of accountability for governmental institutions.
One of the biggest threats to a thriving country is a tyrannical government. To prevent this, the Founders declared that the power of the government must be separated. This principle, the Separation of Powers, states that, to prevent tyranny, one governmental branch cannot have supremacy over the country. The power must be divided among three branches. These are the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. The Separation of Powers is of equal importance now as when the Constitution was written because it prevents tyranny.
The rule of law is thought to be one of the most fundamental doctrines of the constitution of the whole of the United Kingdom. The distinctive UK‘s constitution has influences previously on the judicial system too. Government and the legal systems in history have both been involved in rules and discretion and most of all the elimination of all discretionary power in which both of these are impossible and unwanted. The rule of law means in one sense, government by the law but obviously government is by the people as well as by the law. As soon as the governing people are added in, the government can’t then be by law on there own. Although the situation is not undoubtedly as the making of particular laws can be guided by open and relatively stable general laws that have been made. For the Rule of Law to have meaning in a democratic society, it has to mean that those who run it have comply with it for it to work; there must be no room for an “ends justifies the means”