Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rule of law case study #1
The rule of law theory
The rule of law theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rule of law case study #1
The rule of law as formulated by Raz adds little to a modern democracy as it could apply to both democratic and non-democratic states. The substantive rule of law is unworkable in a system such as exists in the United Kingdom, where the legislature is legally sovereign. Indeed, as both versions of the rule of law have been and could be ignored by the legislature, it is pointless to take the rule of law seriously as a feature of the United Kingdom’s constitution.
Discuss the above statement and outline whether you agree or disagree with this. You must support your answer with reference to academic and judicial opinion, as well as developing your own argument.
There is great difficulty in defining the rule of law despite its unprecedented significance; however, simply in the words of TRS Allan it is ‘a corpus of basic principles and values, which together lend some stability and coherence to the legal order’. Raz and AV Dicey discuss the characteristics of what the law should be in their formal (procedural) definitions, whilst Fuller examines the content and morality of legislature. This essay aims to scrutinise both perspectives whilst questioning the possibility of the rule of law to co-exist in a legally sovereign and or democratic and non-democratic states today.
Many argue that the rule of law is outdated and inapplicable to the modern world today. However, Raz’s first principles: ‘laws should be prospective, open, clear’ and ‘relatively stable’, these are reflected by the United Kingdom’s partly written constitution as parliament is able to amend or implement laws to reflect the evolution of society into modernity. The changes are infrequent and gradual to allow stability and adaption to new views. An example is the C...
... middle of paper ...
...espassing. This validates some aspects of Dicey and Raz’s theory on the rule of law, as government official are prohibited from doing anything that isn’t written in statute to avoid the misuse of their power.
In conclusion, taking into consideration the perspectives on the rule of law, there are obvious limitations when applying them to modern democracies. The importance of the rule of law is undermined when a state is legally sovereign as the rule of power will always be supreme. Raz’s principles have proven to have limitations such as he fails to mention the protection of human rights; however, many of his principles are still current in modern democracies and easily applicable. The substantive definition of the rule of law is better suited as it goes further than the formal rule of law by examining the actual substance of the law instead of just its functions.
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
Legislation and the Common law are not separate and independent sources of law. They exist in a symbiotic relationship. Symbiotic relationship refers to the two different sources of legal norms that provide the sum of rules establish system as a whole. (Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512, 532 [31])
For our government to function it must be able to resolve the conflicts that arise as a result of this ‘struggle’. The rule of law is the principle that enables reconciliation and its primacy to the successful implementation of our government cannot be understated. Simply stated t...
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,
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
The rule of law allows for a mutual understanding of common virtues and a defined path to follow. Strong, respected laws foster strong institutions which promote stability and encourage social development. Without a well system of laws, residents endure serious setbacks: “Conflict-affected states—those, by definition, where the rule of law is lacking—count for disproportionately high percentages of the developing world’s poor, uneducated, and infant deaths,” (Goldston P. 1). Communities depend on laws for stability and prosperity. Several key pillars must be established in order for a community to lay the groundwork for a firm respect of its laws, according to the World Justice Project. Accountability must be established and the government, as well as private actors, need to be held accountable under the law. The laws must be clear, publicized, stable, and just; and protect fundamental rights and core human rights. The processes by which the laws are enacted and enforced must be accessible, fair, and efficient. Justice needs to be delivered in a timely manner by competent, ethical, and independent representatives who are accessible and reflect the makeup of the communities they
Lord Hope notably proposed that ‘the rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimately controlling factor on which our constitution is based’ . This was concurred by Lady Baroness Hale who stated that ‘the courts will treat with particular suspicion any attempt to subvert the rule of law’ although she acknowledged, ‘the constraints upon what Parliament can do are political and diplomatic rather than constitution.’
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.
Ronald Dworkin has become one of the most influential legal philosophers over the last century providing a ‘sophisticated alternative to legal positivism’. Dworkin is a non-orthodox natural law theorist, his account of law centres on his theory of adjudication. A key aspect of adjudication is the concept of Law as Integrity. However, some commentators suggest that Dworkin’s ideal does not reflect the reality of judicial interpretation. In this paper I will outline Dworkin’s ‘law as integrity’ and then highlight some of the criticisms that appear to generate doubt over his writings as a convincing model. I will conclude that whilst his main opponents offer some substantial critiques of Dworkin’s theory of ‘law as integrity’, Dworkin does establish a convincing theory that tries to bridge the gap on judicial discretion that other notable theorists, including H.L.A. Hart, fail to achieve.
A key feature of the unwritten constitution is ‘the Separation of Powers’. 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. Cooperating with one...
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”
In the mouth of a British constitutional lawyer, the term the rule of law seems to mean primarily a corpus of basic principles and values, which together lend some stability and coherence to the legal order.
Law is one of the most important elements that transform humans from mere beasts into intelligent and special beings. Law tells us what is right and wrong and how we, humans, should act to achieve a peaceful society while enjoying individual freedoms. The key to a successful nation is a firm, strong, and fair code of high laws that provides equal and just freedom to all citizens of the country. A strong government is as important as a firm code of law as a government is a backbone of a country and of the laws. A government is a system that executes and determines its laws. As much as fair laws are important, a capable government that will not go corrupt and provide fair services holds a vital role in building and maintaining a strong country.