Among many other points of happiness and freedom which the subjects of Your Majesty of this kingdom have enjoyed among your royal ancestors, kings and queens of this kingdom, there is none that they have considered dearer and more precious than these, to be guided and governed by the sure rule of law, which gives that to both the chief and the members. what is due to them by right, and not by an uncertain or arbitrary form of government. [25] The principle was also discussed by Montesquieu in L`Esprit des lois (1748). [29] The term “rule of law” appears in Samuel Johnson`s Dictionary (1755). [30] The rule of law means that every citizen is subject to the law. This is contrary to the idea that the sovereign is above the law, for example by divine right. The rule of law is particularly important as an influence on the economic development of developing countries and countries with economies in transition. So far, the term “rule of law” is mainly used in English-speaking countries and has not yet been fully clarified, even with regard to established democracies such as Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany or Japan. A common language between lawyers in common law and civil law countries, as well as between the legal communities in developed and developing countries, is essential to explore the links between the rule of law and the real economy. [89] Answer: Before independence, India was forced to follow the rules of the British government.

These rules were arbitrary and not authorized by Indian nationalists. Therefore, the struggle for freedom against the British was also aimed at creating a fair and equitable set of rules for all and not just imposed on Indians. Indian nationalists began to fight for their rights and wanted a set of rules that would be the same for everyone. In addition to a number of states and territories, there is a huge gap across the continent between the rhetoric of the rule of law and reality. In Thailand, the police are popular with the rich and corrupt. In Cambodia, judges are representatives of the ruling political party. Whether a judge harbors political bias or applies the law unevenly is the least of the worries for an ordinary defendant in Asia. More likely, 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 file be closed within a decade? [62] The preamble to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms based on the rule of law states: “Governments of like-minded European countries which have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law.” Studies have shown that weak rule of law (e.g.

discretionary application) discourages investment. Economists have found, for example, that an increase in discretionary enforcement of regulations has led U.S. companies to abandon international investment. [92] The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “the authority and influence of law in society, particularly when viewed as a limitation of individual and institutional behaviour; Hence the principle that all members of a society (including those in government) are also subject to publicly available legal codes and procedures. [2] The term “rule of law” is closely related to both constitutionalism and the rule of law and refers to a political situation and not to a specific legal norm. [3] [4] [5] In general, the rule of law implies that the creation of laws, their application and the relationships between legal norms themselves are governed by law, so that no one – not even the highest official – is above the law. The legal limitation of rulers means that the government is subject to existing laws just as much as its citizens. A closely related term, therefore, is the idea of equality before the law, which states that no “moral” person can enjoy privileges that are not extended to all, and that no one can be immune from legal sanctions. In addition, the application and determination of legislation by various officials must be impartial and consistent in equivalent cases, regardless of the grade, status or relative authority of the parties to the dispute.

For these ideas to be truly bought, there should also be a legal apparatus that obliges civil servants to submit to the law. James Wilson said at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787: “Laws can be unjust, can be reckless, can be dangerous, can be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional that judges refuse to give effect to them. George Mason agreed that judges “can strike down an unconstitutional law. But with regard to any law, no matter how unjust, oppressive or harmful, that does not clearly fit this description, they would be obliged, as judges, to give it carte blanche. [58] Chief Justice John Marshall (followed by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: “If its existence as a law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what the qualities of a law are.” [59] Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics. For example, these theorists argue that the law requires generality (general rules that apply to categories of persons and behaviours as opposed to individuals), publicity (no secret laws), prospective application (few or no retroactive laws), consistency (no conflicting laws),[38] equality (equally applied throughout society), and security (certainty of application to a particular situation). But formalists say there are no requirements regarding the content of the law.