Theory of Rule of Law

Giving officials broad powers without clear limits or guidelines, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions.

The ability for officials to make choices within a range of options, but without being constrained by rigid rules.

Making decisions based on personal biases or whims, rather than on established laws or principles.

The idea that discretionary powers can lead to abuse and become unrestricted, like a slippery slope towards dictatorship.

The idea that a state which actively intervenes in the lives of citizens through regulations and social programs might be incompatible with the rule of law.

The argument that discretionary powers can be limited and controlled through established principles and oversight.

The belief that the rule of law requires all individuals to be subject to the same set of laws and regulations.

The idea that the rule of law is only compatible with legal systems based on precedent, rather than written constitutions.

The idea that laws should be applied in a consistent and predictable way, regardless of who is involved.

Legal philosophers focus more on the abstract qualities of legal systems than just specific institutions.

Formal characteristics of legal rules, like clarity, accessibility, and being prospective, which are seen as essential for a fair legal system.

The idea that laws should have an internal sense of morality, being just and fair, not just a set of arbitrary commands.

Institutions, like governments, courts, and legislatures, are shaped by their specific history and context.

The idea that legal systems are often too complex to be transplanted successfully from one country to another.

The idea that the rule of law is not a set of specific institutions but rather a shared set of ideals and principles.

Even without specific institutions, diverse routes can be taken to achieve the rule of law, allowing for different approaches to justice.

Laws should be expressed in general rules, not just random pronouncements.

Laws must be publicly available so that people can know what they are.

Laws should apply to future events, not past ones.

Laws should be written in a clear and understandable way.

Laws shouldn't contradict each other.

Laws shouldn't demand the impossible.

Laws should be stable, not constantly changing.

The implementation of laws must be consistent with their written terms.

Making decisions based solely on the personal preference or whim of the individual in power, without any objective or legal constraints.

The freedom from arbitrary or unpredictable exercise of power, protecting individuals from unpredictable and uncontrolled decisions by those in authority.

The feeling of constant anxiety and uncertainty caused by the possibility of unpredictable or unjust power.

The ability to make plans and cooperate based on predictable and consistent laws, instead of fearing unpredictable decisions by those in power.

Being treated with respect and dignity as an individual with rights, not a passive object at the mercy of those in power.

The argument that reducing the possibility of arbitrary exercise of power is essential for a society to achieve freedom, confidence, coordination, and dignity.

The claim that limiting arbitrary power through law is not just a matter of avoiding negative consequences but a positive step toward a better, more just society.

The legal systems of countries with a strong rule of law already have mechanisms to address some universal legal issues, making them less vulnerable to certain threats.

In countries with well-developed legal systems, focusing on strengthening legal institutions may be a more effective approach than addressing every potential threat to the rule of law.

Conservatives in rule of law rich countries may overreact to changes like the injection of social concerns into legal decisions, seeing them as threats to the rule of law, even in cases where legal stability is not at risk.

Radicals in rule of law rich countries may view any lack of absolute certainty in legal decisions as evidence of rule of law absence, failing to recognize the complexities of legal processes and the need for interpretation.

The stability of the rule of law allows for a broader vision of justice and the pursuit of social goals without jeopardizing the fundamental legal framework.

Different legal systems may face different threats to the rule of law, requiring tailored responses and strategies.

The rule of law can withstand some level of discretionary power and social considerations in legal decisions without becoming unstable, especially in established legal systems.

The rule of law is a constantly evolving concept that requires a dynamic and adaptive approach to ensure it meets the needs of society.