The rule of law is a political and legal ideal that all people and institutions within a political body are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers, government officials, and judges.It is sometimes stated simply as “no one is above the law” or “all are equal before the law”. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, it is defined as “the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power.”
Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain. In the following century, Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings. John Locke wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws written by a legislature that apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free from both governmental and private restrictions of liberty. The phrase “rule of law” was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. However, the principle, if not the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient thinkers. Aristotle wrote: “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.”
The term rule of law is closely related to constitutionalism as well as Rechtsstaat. It refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.Distinct is the rule of man, where one person or group of persons rule arbitrarily.
History
Although credit for popularizing the expression “the rule of law” in modern times is usually given to A. V. Dicey, development of the legal concept can be traced through history to many ancient civilizations, including ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, India, and Rome.
Early history (to 15th century)
The earliest conception of rule of law can be traced back to the Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabharata – the earliest versions of which date around to 8th or 9th centuries BC.The Mahabharata deals with the concepts of Dharma (used to mean law and duty interchangeably), Rajdharma (duty of the king) and Dharmaraja. It states in one of its slokas that,”The people should execute a king who does not protect them, but deprives them of their property and assets and who takes no advice or guidance from any one. Such a king is not a king but misfortune.”
Other sources for the philosophy of rule of law can be traced to the Upanishads which state that, “The law is the king of the kings. No one is higher than the law. Not even the king.” Other commentaries include Kautilya’s Arthashastra (4th-century BC), Manusmriti (dated to the 1st to 3rd century CE), Yajnavalkya-Smriti (dated between the 3rd and 5th century CE), Brihaspati Smriti (dated between 15 CE and 16 CE).
Modern period (1500 CE – present)
In 1481, during the reign of Ferdinand II of Aragon, the Constitució de l’Observança was approved by the General Court of Catalonia, establishing the submission of royal power (included its officers) to the laws of the Principality of Catalonia.
In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions “that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King (James I) was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (that the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.).”
Among the first modern authors to use the term and give the principle theoretical foundations was Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex (1644). The title, Latin for “the law is king”, subverts the traditional formulation rex lex (“the king is law”). James Harrington wrote in Oceana (1656), drawing principally on Aristotle’s Politics, that among forms of government an “Empire of Laws, and not of Men” was preferable to an “Empire of Men, and not of Laws”.
John Locke also discussed this issue in his Second Treatise of Government (1690):
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.
The principle was also discussed by Montesquieu in The Spirit of Law (1748). The phrase “rule of law” appears in Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary (1755).
In 1776, the notion that no one is above the law was popular during the founding of the United States. For example, Thomas Paine wrote in his pamphlet Common Sense that “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.” In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in Article VI of the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
No man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public; and this title being in nature neither hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is absurd and unnatural.
The term “rule of law” was popularised by British jurist A. V. Dicey, who viewed the rule of law in common law systems as comprising three principles. First, that government must follow the law that it makes; second, that no one is exempt from the operation of the law and that it applies equally to all; and third, that general rights emerge from particular cases decided by the courts.
The influence of Britain, France and the United States contributed to spreading the principle of the rule of law to other countries around the world.
Legal theory and philosophy
The Oxford English Dictionary has defined rule of law as:
The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.
Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as “an exceedingly elusive notion”. In modern legal theory, there are at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law: a formalist or “thin” definition, and a substantive or “thick” definition. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the justness of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law, generally from more recent authors, go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. One occasionally encounters a third “functional” conception.
The functional interpretation of the term rule of law contrasts the rule of law with the rule of man. According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”. Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law.[55] The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable.
Social science analyses
Economics
Economists and lawyers have studied and analysed the rule of law’s impact on economic development. In particular, a major question in the area of law and economics is whether the rule of law matters to economic development, particularly in developing nations. The economist F. A. Hayek analyzed how the rule of law might be beneficial to the free market. Hayek proposed that under the rule of law, individuals would be able to make wise investments and future plans with some confidence in a successful return on investment when he stated: “under the Rule of Law the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc action. Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts.”
Studies have shown that weak rule of law (for example, discretionary regulatory enforcement) discourages investment. Economists have found, for example, that a rise in discretionary regulatory enforcement caused US firms to abandon international investments.
Constitutional economics is the study of the compatibility of economic and financial decisions within existing constitutional law frameworks. Aspects of constitutional frameworks relevant to both the rule of law and public economics include government spending on the judiciary, which, in many transitional and developing countries, is completely controlled by the executive. Additionally, judicial corruption may arise from both the executive branch and private actors. Standards of constitutional economics such as transparency can also be used during annual budget processes for the benefit of the rule of law. Further, the availability of an effective court system in situations of unfair government spending and executive impoundment of previously authorized appropriations is a key element for the success of the rule of law.
Nobel laureates (2024) Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson emphasize the importance of the rule of law in their book Why Nations Fail. They argue that the rule of law ensures that laws apply equally to everyone, including elites and government officials. This principle is crucial for promoting inclusive institutions, which are key to sustained economic growth and prosperity.
The authors highlight historical examples, such as the French Revolution, where the rule of law helped dismantle absolutism and feudal privileges, paving the way for inclusive institutions. They also discuss how pluralistic political institutions are essential for the rule of law to thrive, as they create broad coalitions that support fairness and equality.
Comparative approaches
The term “rule of law” has been used primarily in the English-speaking countries, and it is not yet fully clarified with regard to such well-established democracies such as Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, or Japan. A common language between lawyers of common law and civil law countries is critically important for research of links between the rule of law and real economy.
The rule of law can be hampered when there is a disconnect between legal and popular consensus. For example, under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization, nominally strong copyright laws have been implemented throughout most of the world; but because the attitude of much of the population does not conform to these laws, a rebellion against ownership rights has manifested in rampant piracy, including an increase in peer-to-peer file sharing. Similarly, in Russia, tax evasion is common and a person who admits he does not pay taxes is not judged or criticized by his colleagues and friends, because the tax system is viewed as unreasonable. Bribery likewise has different normative implications across cultures.
Education
UNESCO has argued that education has an important role in promoting the rule of law and a culture of lawfulness, providing an important protective function by strengthening learners’ abilities to face and overcome difficult life situations. Young people can be important contributors to a culture of lawfulness, and governments can provide educational support that nurtures positive values and attitudes in future generations. A movement towards education for justice seeks to promote the rule of law in schools.
Political Science
Francis Fukuyama in his book The origins of political order puts The Rule of Law as a requirement for stability.
Status in various jurisdictions
The rule of law has been considered one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as “the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence.” Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map at right. Other evaluations such as the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index show that adherence to rule of law fell in 61% of countries in 2022. Globally, this means that 4.4 billion people live in countries where rule of law declined in 2021.
United States
All government officers of the United States, including the President, Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution, affirming that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.
James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, “Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect.” George Mason agreed that judges “could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course.” Chief Justice John Marshall a similar position in 1827: “When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law.”
Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the “rule of law”, and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word “law” in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being “defined by formal or substantive criteria”, and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that “an unjust law was not really a law at all”.
Some modern scholars contend that the rule of law has been corroded during the past century by the instrumental view of law promoted by legal realists such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and Roscoe Pound. For example, Brian Tamanaha asserts: “The rule of law is a centuries-old ideal, but the notion that law is a means to an end became entrenched only in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”
Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law in administrative law has been some version of Dicey’s, that is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. The increased number of administrative cases led to fears that excess judicial oversight over administrative decisions would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more or less tracked “the ordinary legal manner” of the courts, further review of the facts by “the ordinary Courts of the land” was unnecessary. Thus Dicey’s rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form.
On July 1, 2024, in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court held that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts.Legal scholars have warned of the negative impact of this decision on the status of rule of law in the United States. Prior to that, in 1973 and 2000 the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice issued opinions saying that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted,but it is constitutional to indict and try a former president for the same offenses for which the President was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate under the Impeachment Disqualification Clause of Article I, Section III.
Numerous definitions of “rule of law” are used in United States governmental bodies. An organization’s definition might depend on that organization’s goal. For instance, military occupation or counterinsurgency campaigns may necessitate prioritising physical security over human rights. U.S. Army doctrine and U.S. Government (USG) interagency agreements might see the rule of law as a principle of governance: Outlines of different definitions are given in a JAG Corps handbook for judge advocates deployed with the US Army.
Europe
The preamble of the rule of law European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms says “the governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law”.
In France and Germany the concepts of rule of law (Etat de droit and Rechtsstaat respectively) are analogous to the principles of constitutional supremacy and protection of fundamental rights from public authorities, particularly the legislature. France was one of the early pioneers of the ideas of the rule of law. The German interpretation is more rigid but similar to that of France and the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom
Main article: Rule of law in the United Kingdom
See also: History of the constitution of the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom the rule of law is a long-standing principle of the way the country is governed, dating from England’s Magna Carta in 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689. In the 19th century classic work Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885), A. V. Dicey, a constitutional scholar and lawyer, wrote of the twin pillars of the British constitution: the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty.
Asia
East Asian cultures are influenced by two schools of thought, Confucianism, which advocated good governance as rule by leaders who are benevolent and virtuous, and legalism, which advocated strict adherence to law. The influence of one school of thought over the other has varied throughout the centuries. One study indicates that throughout East Asia, only South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong have societies that are robustly committed to a law-bound state. According to Awzar Thi, a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, the rule of law in Cambodia and most of Asia is weak or nonexistent:
Apart from a number of states and territories, across the continent there is a huge gulf between the rule of law rhetoric and reality. In Thailand, the police force is favor over the rich and corrupted. In Cambodia, judges are proxies for the ruling political party … That a judge may harbor political prejudice or apply the law unevenly are the smallest worries for an ordinary criminal defendant in Asia. More likely ones are: Will the police fabricate the evidence? Will the prosecutor bother to show up? Will the judge fall asleep? Will I be poisoned in prison? Will my case be completed within a decade?
In countries such as China and Vietnam, the transition to a market economy has been a major factor in a move toward the rule of law, because the rule of law is important to foreign investors and to economic development. It remains unclear whether the rule of law in countries like China and Vietnam will be limited to commercial matters or will spill into other areas as well, and if so whether that spillover will enhance prospects for related values such as democracy and human rights.