Rule of Law Essay

RULE OF Law
In class of Twentieth century. the outgrowths of democratic statute laws and province public assistance Torahs have lowered the consequence of natural jurisprudence and common jurisprudence. These Torahs are bit broad and sometimes puts restrictions on the regulation of Law in the name of nation’s Interest. This rule of ‘Rule of Law’ has been a affair of treatment and analysis since a long clip in the kingdom of Jurisprudence and Legal theory. But. really less involvement has been shown towards the exact definition of ‘Rule of Law’ . Rule of jurisprudence agencies. the jurisprudence should govern. Peoples should follow and obey the jurisprudence. In simple manner we may state that by Rule of Law the sense that is conveyed is. no 1 is above jurisprudence but Law is above all. In present universe. a hassle is traveling on between the regulation of power and the regulation of Law. The states holding powers are seeking to stamp down relatively weaker states. After so many old ages of the cold war. America managed to go world’s greatest economic system and military power and besides current job for the regulation of jurisprudence. Bing a strong state America has become really important for other states for assisting them and aching them every bit good. America’s war against terrorist act is an illustration of regulation of power over regulation of jurisprudence. Beginning of Rule of Law

This philosophy was foremost introduced in seventeenth century and developed during 19th century by the English Jurist A. V Dicey. In many texts Dicey was regarded as the Father of the philosophy of ‘Rule of Law’ . But foremost it was propounded in UK by Sir Edward Coke ( Lord Chief Justice of England ) . subsequently on was developed by Dicey. The regulation of jurisprudence owe its beginning from the Gallic word ‘la princpe district attorney legalite’ which means that merely the Law has the legality. the Law. which is merely. good and supreme. They established the regulation that Law is the maestro of authorities non the authorities. a maestro of Law. In Middle Ages. around seventh century. Muslim Jurisprudence established that the Law is above all and no 1 is above the constituted rules of Law. non even a Caliph. As per this regulation. the determination of sovereign can besides non be considered the supreme one. Subsequently on in modern times it was developed by many other legal experts. This was fundamentally to overlook the functions of the arbitrary authorities. Judges played a important function in the blooming of this Doctrine.

First it was observed in the most famed instance. was ‘The Case of Prohibition’ . which was itself judged by King James IV. The so main Justice. Sir Edward Coke rejected this on the land that the ‘Rule of Law’ is non something that is decided by the untrained sovereign. The celebrated Magna charta in 1215. was considered as the beginning of the Rule of Law in England. In this charter the regulation and the power of the King John was limited by the feudal Lords who was governed by the weaponries. They bargains upon the powers of the male monarch in this charter. Every democracy in the universe today. is the illustration of regulation of jurisprudence. We can follow out their beginning from their ancient theory of state edifice. There are two basic constructs of the ‘Rule of Law’ : the formal one and the significant 1. In the formal construct they do non concentrate on the rightness of jurisprudence. whether a jurisprudence is merely or non. The lone thing which is considered is the followers of the legitimate regulations. We can happen the illustration from the Middle East counties. where the Torahs are really rigorous. an oculus for an oculus and manus for manus. But in the significant construct travel beyond merely specifying it. it besides looks at the rightness of jurisprudence. Dicey’s rule of regulation of Law has its ain advantage. It serves as the tool to look into the flightiness in the system and maintaining the administrative systems within their bound.

The authorities sometimes has the discretional powers ; these discretional powers should non be the arbitrational. They should take the determinations on maintaining in head the benefits of populace at big. Whenever there is any struggle. justness must be given to individual on the footing of fixed legal rule non the arbitrary regulations made by adult male. Besides. no individual shall be deprived of his life or belongings unless otherwise in a breach of the uttered regulations. Until and unless the Law prohibits a adult male from making anything. he is supposed to make that. It was held in the instance of Entick v. Carrington. that a individual is free to bask or to make whatever he likes unless the jurisprudence restricts him from making so. Another chief aim behind all rule is that everyone should be treated every bit. and the footing should be Law. In his 3rd rule Dicey puts accent on the domination of bench on make up one’s minding the rights of people. The Judgess should make up one’s mind the instance on the footing of fixed and established regulations.

The ground behind this was that Dicey had the apprehensiveness that legislative acts can be easy amended by the parliaments and the rights thereof may besides be taken off from the citizens. Hence there must be a stable and constituted Rule of Law that can non be harassed by the powerful work forces. We can see the regulation of jurisprudence besides in the context of either following or non following with the regulation of jurisprudence. The non conformity can be seen from the history to the current events. Today the authorities everyplace. either in a democratic province or monarchial province. is non wholly following the regulation of Law. One or in other subdivision of administration they fail to use it. The regulation of Law can non be without the crystalline legal system. Rule of Law and England

We know that unlike the other written fundamental laws. British fundamental law is non in written signifier. Here most of the regulations were adopted on the footing of Judicial case in points. We can besides state it the Judgess made jurisprudence. Dicey’s survey was really based on the working of English Constitution so we can see that he advocated this signifier is better than the written signifier. In England this regulation was followed in many concrete instances even in against the regulating authorization. In Wilkes v. Woods. a individual was entitled to claim the amendss against a police officer who wrongfully entered the plaintiff’s premises. This shows that Rule of Law is to be applied to every person if he does something which is against the Law whether he be a common adult male or the police officer. as he trespasses the land of other adult male. Hence we can germinate from here. that the act which is non prohibited by Law is permitted. In instance of. Melone 5 metropolitan constabulary commissioner. the tribunal held the act which is non prohibited by the Law constabulary can merely authorise do that. The instance was about taping the phone call of the individual who was accused of larceny. Despite of giving such efficient theory. Dicey’s rule was criticized by many legal experts across the universe. Dicey was criticized on the land that. he over emphasized on the domination of Law merely but was non certain about the rightness or rightness of Law. As a effect at that place may be a jurisprudence which is contrary with the human rights as it is non guaranteed by the fundamental law.

He was wholly against the discretional power of the disposal. Harmonizing to him discretional power in all instance will be corrupt one but there are many legislative acts now a day’s which gives absolute power to the constabulary. like in exigency state of affairs to keep peace and repose in the province. In such state of affairs. the authorities can prehend the rights and autonomy of persons so that it may non ensue in gross misdemeanor of Law by the populace. Dicey’s 2nd regulation was about the equality among work forces. He says that everymen should be subjected to the same Law. But harmonizing to many legal experts. this is wholly a obscure construct. how can everybody can be treated likewise when they are different? Our society is composed of different sort of people. we ourselves assigned them the work. They have different responsibilities and duties. so they should besides be treated otherwise. There are some underprivileged group. how can we handle them same as the 1 who are privileged by birth.

This was held in instance of Woodward v. The Church of Scientology. that the public functionary and the private citizen are non equal. So we can non handle them every bit when our society has a large societal difference. Another unfavorable judgment is that. we can non ever be governed harmonizing to the regulation of jurisprudence. Subsequently on. Dicey’s rule was presented by the political theoretician Joseph Raz. with few alterations with the Rule of Law which can complement the regulation. He did non curtail himself merely to the unfavorable judgment of Dicey. But he gave an reply that why we failed to set up the Rule of Law in England systematically with few reviewing guidelines. twentieth CENTURY WORLD ORDER AND THE RULE OF Law

Although the regulation of Law popularized by Dicey. was criticized by many legal experts across all administrative system. it still holds much H2O in regulating the province. It can be considered as the idealistic 1. Justice should be done through the known and recognized rules of jurisprudence. There is a great demand of this regulation now yearss. We can clearly see the abortion of justness and misdemeanor of Law and order everyplace. Parliament have become paralyzed. they are neglecting to implement the established regulations. The corrupt and selfish authoritiess are warranting their cruel statute laws in their ain manner and they call it the regulation of jurisprudence or the supreme Law. We started really good with the domination of the jurisprudence. the jurisprudence of the land. But bit by bit there is a huge divergence from the end that has to be achieved. The systems are fall ining due to the failure of the regulating authorization. In the monarchial states or non democratic states. they molded this Concept harmonizing to themselves and for their ain benefits. Laws there are in support of the governments non the populace.

In the name of Law. the swayers are implementing their ain will on the topics. There are many illustrations in universe today. the occurrences of Arab states ; instead we can state that the full in-between Asiatic part is affected by this. As a consequence of this people are losing religion in authorities and their Torahs and they adopted the other manner in the signifier of rebellion to contend with the corrupt decision makers. For illustration. in Libya. Syria. Egypt etc. There is hue and call everyplace. We can state that no regulation of Law exists but the regulation of people. By this we are traveling back to the early society which was described by Thomas Hobbes in his work as lone. brutal. awful and cruel. There was no Law. Besides in democratic states. where there are Parliaments and other regulating organic structures to do Laws and ordinances. are besides neglecting to accomplish the end. It is supposed that in political orientation of democracy is to back up the legal system and condemnable justness but on the contrary. the electorate system in democracy is corrupting the legal system and condemnable justness. If we talk about England. we will besides acquire defeated. The regulation of Law which was one time the footing of administration in UK is now disappeared. The current public violences in London were the mounting illustration for everyone.

Then came the political public violences by the pupils opposing the Government on paying for their instruction by themselves was the utmost 1. And what will we state about the term of sentence for the assailant Rupert Murdoch. who was termed a sentence of six hebdomads but serves merely two in gaol. There are many other illustrations which can be quoted for demoing how paralyzed the system is going. But there is still much clip to rectify all these by following the rigorous Rule of Law as mentioned by Dicey. Keeping in position the present state of affairss. the philosophy can be somewhat modified in different legal systems. There should be a Rule of Law. and that should be justified. Equal should be treated every bit and no 1 should be considered above Law of the Land. To reason the whole treatment I can state that the regulation of Law remainders on first topographic point with the credence that there should be some systematic regulation of jurisprudence. depending on the systematic regulations which should be applicable to all. And its pertinence depends on the fact that it should be just and effectual non manipulative.

Mentions
1. Varsha. ‘Comparative Analysis of Rule of Law in India & A ; UK’ . ( 2010 ) hypertext transfer protocol: //www. legalserviceindia. com/article/l457-Rule-of-Law-in-India- & A ; -UK. hypertext markup language. accessed On 2nd March 2012 2. Khan Kamaluddin. ‘The philosophy of regulation of Law’ ( 2009 ) . hypertext transfer protocol: //twocircles. net/legal_circle/doctrine_rule_law_kamaluddin_khan. hypertext markup language. accessed on 2nd March 2012 3. Stephenson Mathew. “The Rule of jurisprudence as a end of Development policy”

hypertext transfer protocol: //www1. worldbank. org/publicsector/legal/ruleoflaw2. htm accessed on 2nd March 2012 4. Dabcanboulet. ‘Dicey’s positions on the regulation of jurisprudence and the domination of parliament’ . ( 2002 ) . hypertext transfer protocol: //everything2. com/title/Dicey % 2527s+views+on+the+rule+of+law+and+the+supremacy+of+parliament 5. Murray Ian. ‘The Failure of the regulation of Law in Britain’ . 2010. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. nationalreview. com/corner/274233/failure-rule-law-britain-iain-murray. assessed on 3rd March 2012 6. Raz Joseph. The Rule of Law and Its Virtue ( The Law one-fourth Review ) 201 7. Hart HLA. ‘The construct Of Law’ . 2nd edn. Claredon Press ( 1994 ) 135

CASE LAWS
1. The instance of Prohibition [ 1607 ] EWHCJ [ 23 ] KB
2. Entick v Carrington [ 1765 ] [ 19 ] St Tr [ 1030 ]
3. Wilkes 5 Woods [ 1763 ] [ 19 ] St Tr [ 1153 ]
4. Melone V Metropolitan constabulary Commissioner [ 1979 ] 2 All ER [ 620 ] 5. Woodward v. The Church of Scientology [ 1983 ] 57 ALJR [ 42 ]

——————————————–
[ 2 ] . Varsha. ‘Comparative Analysis of Rule of Law in India & A ; UK’ . Legal sevice India. ( 2010 ) [ 3 ] . [ 1607 ] EWHCJ [ 23 ] KB
[ 4 ] . [ 1765 ] 19 St Tr 1030
[ 5 ] . Mathew Stephenson. “The Rule of jurisprudence as a end of Development policy” . ( 2002 ) [ 6 ] . [ 1979 ] 2 All ER [ 620 ]
[ 7 ] . Dabcanboulet. ‘Dicey’s positions on the regulation of jurisprudence and the domination of parliament’ . ( 2002 ) [ 8 ] . Ibid 1
[ 9 ] . [ 1983 ] 57 ALJR [ 42 ]
[ 10 ] . Joseph Raz. ‘The Rule of Law and Its Virtue’ ( The Law one-fourth Review ) PP- [ 195-205 ] [ 11 ] . Ian Murray. ‘The Failure of the regulation of Law in Britain’ . 2010.