Starbucks Rule Of Law

The Rule of Law was not compromised in Starbucks’s case. My argument proceeds in two parts: First, a section aiming to construct a thorough account of the Rule of Law, and second, the application of that account to the Starbucks situation. I find that the Rule of Law speaks specifically to state power and that state power complied with the Rule of Law in this case.

Reconstructing the Rule of Law

What is the Rule of Law? It is a “multi-faceted ideal” generally including “a requirement that people in positions of authority ... exercise their power within a constraining framework of public norms rather than on the basis of their own preferences… .” Beyond this, “many conceptions of the Rule of Law place great emphasis on legal certainty, predictability, and settlement,” among others. In the following section I aim to further elucidate the concept of the Rule of Law by tying it to some of the ends it helps reach.

The Rule of Law refers to one of several virtues in the mosaic of attributes people generally regard as essential in ‘good’ legal systems. It is well enough that laws be

These values rely on a pact between the government and its subjects in which the government says, “if you follow [our laws], you have our assurance that they are the rules that will be applied to your conduct.” But public pressure has in effect altered the rules applied to Starbucks, for it must pay additional tax in order to escape the sting of public censure. Thus, public pressure has created a situation that has both confined Starbucks’s freedom and put it at a potentially unjust disadvantage, for other companies have likely exploited the same tax loopholes without having to endure social opprobrium. Hence, the freedom and justice functions of the Rule of Law have been compromised, and the state’s guarantee of the standard that will be applied to Starbucks’s conduct is