Rule of Law Essay

Law experts use the phrase "rule of law" to describe the idea that laws control society. Using
quotes from Plato and Aristotle shows that this idea comes from Greece. When the Magna
Carta was signed in 1215, people in England thought the rule of law was still living. The idea was
praised so much that it was written into the Bill of Rights in 1689. When government groups
make decisions, the rule of law doctrine says they should follow well-known rules or laws with
little room for error. People use the rule of law theory to talk about certain aspects of how a
legal system should work. This doctrine is also used to keep the relationship between the legal
system and people and between the legal system and government powers. As a way to protect
the rule of law, judges have done important things like recognizing basic human rights and
freedom by following the rules for interpreting the law. The acts of government, on the other
hand, can both protect and break the rule of law. Recent changes to the way parliament works
are meant to protect rule of law principles, but parliamentary authority means that if
parliament wants to, they can pass acts or laws that go against basic rule of law and human
rights principles. In the case of R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, Lord Reed
stated, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our
constitution is based.”
The way we think about the rule of law today can be found in Lord Bingham's writings. Lord
Bingham used eight "sub-rules" to illustrate the rule of law. The first rule is that the legislation
should be accessible, clear, and predictable. The rationale behind this regulation is that if
everyone needs to observe the law, they should be able to locate it easily. A lot of effort has
gone into ensuring that British citizens can access "raw" law via government websites such as
www.legislation.gov.uk, www.gov.uk gateway and government department websites in
recent years. This is a significant step towards making the legislation more understandable. It is
also critical that the law be explicit. Parliamentary draftsmen of statutes and statutory papers
always have a hard time making things clear. It's especially hard when parts of the law are very
controversial publicly and change a lot in the legislature. It's not always clear how laws are
made, and political pressure can cause laws to be made quickly. A very important part of the
rule of law is that things can be predicted. It is common for people in dictatorships to not know
if a certain action will be punished or not. This gives the government more power because it
makes things less predictable. It is also hard to know what will happen when laws are applied to
things that have already happened. This occurred as a result of the War Damage Act of 1965
(Burmah Oil vs. Lord Advocate). Judges will interpret the law with the assumption that it does
not apply to the past, according to Article 7 of the ECHR. The second rule is that when deciding
legal matters such as right and wrong, lawyers should rely on the law rather than their
personal judgment. The argument behind this rule is that if judges are given more flexibility,
they will be more inclined to make arbitrary conclusions. The third rule is that the law should
treat everyone equally unless there are evident exceptions. The regulations should, in
general, treat everyone equally. But if the law is the same for everyone, then the rule of law
doesn't always allow for any difference between British citizens and other people. The rule of
law is broken in these situations, like in the Belmarsh Case. In criminal law, children and people
who aren't mentally capable are treated differently when it comes to how they are
investigated, tried, and sentenced. People under the age of 10 are considered doli incapax,
which means they are legally unable to commit a crime. The fourth rule says that ministers and
other public servants must act honestly, properly, and for the reason they were given the
power, without going beyond that power and not being unreasonable. Judicial review is a way
to question the actions of politicians and other public bodies when they did not follow the rules
they were given or when they were unfair or unreasonable. People can question decisions if
they are unfair or if they are not given the chance to be heard. The fifth rule says, the
government must protect people's rights. A lot has changed in the way people's rights are
protected since the HRA made the ECHR part of UK law. The sixth rule says that real civil issues
must be settled quickly and cheaply. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is becoming more
common, and the government supports it. However, civil court cases are still an important part
of the legal system. A court case called R v Lord Chancellor, ex p Witham decided that access to
the courts is a constitutional right. The government can only deny this right if it can get
Parliament to pass specific laws that let the executive turn people away at the court door.
People always have different opinions on how much civil action costs. The Civil Procedure Rules
have helped cut down on delays in the civil justice system, but the removal of civil legal aid is
making it more expensive for regular people to go to court. The seventh rule says that the
ways that decisions are made should be fair. The last rule is that you have to follow
international law.
The content-free interpretation of the rule of law focuses on the form of the law and the
procedures by which law is made. Raz, a legal writer, came up with eight basic concepts that
show this way of thinking: 1. All laws should be open, clear, and prospective; 2. Laws should be
fairly stable; 3. Laws should be made by following clear rules; 4. The judiciary should be
separate from the executive branch; 5. The principles of natural justice should be followed; 6.
The courts should be able to check how other principles are being applied; 7. The courts should
be easy to get to; 8. Police and crime-fighting agencies should not be able to break the law with
their own judgement.
According to Raz and Paul Craig, the "content-free" view of the rule of law stresses how
important the form of the law and its processes are. Dworkin likes the "content-rich"
interpretation, which says that the rule of law gives people morals and ideals. It's clear that
Lord Bingham's meaning of the rule of law is not "content-free," since his sub-rules 5 and 8 say
that laws must respect human rights.
AV Dicey’s description of the rule of law-
Three rules were used by AV Dicey to explain the rule of law in his book "Introduction to the
Study of the Law of the Constitution." The first rule is that no one should be punished or lose
something unless they clearly broke the law. Second, everyone is equal before the law; no one
is above it. Third, the common law, not a written bill of rights, is the best way to protect rights
and freedom.

Sir Ivor Jennings said that Dicey's assumption was wrong in "The Law and the Constitution." In
relation to the first idea, he says that the rule of law did not agree with the executive's use of its
power to make decisions. He also said that rules and regulations made by delegated or
secondary laws are being used a lot more. Jennings also made a strong case that Dicey's second
point didn't take into account the special protections some people have, like children and
foreign officials who have diplomatic immunity. Lastly, Dicey's third point doesn't say anything
about how important laws (like the HRA) are for protecting people's rights.

Protection of the rule of law by the courts-

To keep the rule of law effective, UK courts are very important when it comes to figuring out
what the law means and making the common law better. When it comes to the courts,
protecting the rule of law has been all over the place because problems are only solved when
someone goes to court. Some critics, like Griffith, have said that the judges' social backgrounds
seemed to make them too conservative and careful. Some cases, like Entick v. Carrington and
M. v. Home Office, have shown that the courts are ready to question the government's power
in order to protect people's rights. The HL said that the government had to follow the law in M
v. Home Office. It wasn't safe from court orders, and the minister could be charged with
contempt of court. In Malone vs. MPC, on the other hand, it was decided that there is no
domestic rule that protects people's rights when it comes to listening in on their calls. The court
wouldn't give that security. After more thought, the ECtHR decided in Malone vs. UK that the
UK had broken Article 8 of the ECHR. The UK government responded by passing the
Interception of Communications Act 1985. Under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
2001, A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department looked at the government's power to
hold non-UK citizens without a hearing. Because it only applied to people who were not from
the UK, the 2001 Act was criticised under the HRA for being unfair under Article 14 of the ECHR.
That it was used in an unfair way was decided by the House. After this decision, the government
passed the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which set up the "control order" system. This
worked for both UK citizens and people from other countries. In the case of R v Director of the
Serious Fraud Office (2008), the House of Lords said that national security was at risk and
would not allow judicial review.
Protection of the rule of law by Parliament-
Parliament can pass laws that both support and weaken the rule of law. The theory of
parliamentary sovereignty says that Parliament has the final say on whether or not to pass an
Act of Parliament that goes against the law. The courts can only do so much to force people to
do things. Parliamentary supremacy is the third theory of AV dicey. It says that the court cannot
question the legality of an act of parliament. The results of a fight between these two leaders
were briefly talked about in Jackson v A-G. Lords Steyn and Hope said in Jackson v A-G. (2005)
that they can throw out Acts of Parliament that take away basic rights in extreme cases where
the courts would see it as right to do so in the name of the rule of law.

Protection of the rule of law by the Lord Chancellor-

S.1 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 made it clear that the Lord Chancellor would keep the
constitutional role that they already had. That job wasn't made clear in the Act. The 2005 Act doesn't say
what the job is, but it has been said that it involves speaking out against plans in cabinet and Parliament
that could hurt the rule of law. The courts won't be able to make them do the job. Instead, Lord
Bingham has said that the role of the Lord Chancellor in protecting the rule of law could, in theory, be
reviewed by the courts. Since cabinet meetings are private, it's been hard to figure out what part each
Lord Chancellor plays in making decisions. As a result, the courts haven't had a chance to look into it.

Rule of law and separation of powers:

The idea of "separation of powers" is closely related to the rule of law. According to the doctrine of
separation of powers, each of the three branches—legislature, judiciary, and executive—must carry out
its own different duties. Because of this, the rule of law says that no one part of the government should
ever have all the power. Instead, these three sections need to be given different amounts of power and
be measured.

Conclusion:
The rule of law is an intellectual and political idea, so it is impossible to give a clear definition. No matter
how hard someone tries to describe or limit this broad idea of the rule of law, it will always be vague. In
constitutional law around the world, the idea of the rule of law has remained the most important and
inspiring. Thomas Fuller truly said that, “be you are ever so high, the law is above you.”