Rule of Law Answer

Around 350 B.C.E., Plato and Aristotle talked about the law. According to Plato, "where the law
is subject to some other authority and has none of its own," the state inevitably fails.But if the
law is the master and the state the slave, then the situation is hopeful, and people will benefit
from all the gifts God can provide to a nation. Aristotle agreed that "law should govern, and
those in power should be servants of the laws." The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215,
is often cited as the first document in English law to establish the concept of rule of law.

The first formal theoretical groundwork was laid by Samuel Rutherford's "Lex, Rex" (1644).
Reversed from "Rex, Lex," this Latin phrase means "the law is king." This issue was discussed in
"Second Treatise of Government" (1690) by John Locke. The concept was formalized by
Montesquieu's "spirit of the laws" (1748). Subsequently, numerous jurists and legal philosophers,
including Dicey, Jennings, H.L.A. Hart, Dworkins, Craig, Raz, and many more, disputed this
point and articulated rule of law from various vantage points. First, we need to look at what these
theories mean by "rule of law" so that we may determine which concept is closest to the English
constitution and how the rule of law is safeguarded, made effective, and represented in English
law.

We will examine both content-filled and empty definitions. Since there is no universally
accepted understanding of the rule of law, the content-free school argues that any law that is
passed through the correct procedures is legal, even if it violates fundamental human rights.
"Law is a sharp edge knife," says content-free jurist Joseph Raz. "It can save lives and kill
murderers." The second camp contends that law is more than just a set of rules and rejects the
content-free definition. One content-rich jurist argues that "the 'rights' conception of rule of law
is in several ways more ambitious than the rule book conception." Dworkins. It holds that "every
citizen owes and is owed a duty to every other citizen." Compliance with unjust laws, he argues,
will lead to massive injustice. Dicey, writing in the 19th century, summed up this foundational
premise, rule of law, in three ideas. The main principles of the constitution are the product of
judicial decisions—common law—determining private person rights. (i) A man is not
punishable, until found guilty by the regular courts of the land. Lord Bingham's definition, at
last. Lord Bingham, in his 8 sub-principles of rule of law, echoed Raz's emphasis on the
importance of laws being easily accessible, understandable, and predictable, but he also
emphasized the need for laws to adequately protect fundamental rights (sub-rule 5), apply the
law uniformly to all parties (sub-rule 3), and allow for the proper use of executive and public
body powers (sub-rule 4).

The rule of law is a wide notion in English public law that encompasses the moral and political
norms that underpin the law and require the government to be subjected to clear and stable
pronouncements of the law that are broadly applicable. As a result, content-rich theorists like
Lord Bingham seem more suitable and timely. According to Sunkin, rule of law in the United
Rule of Law Answer

Kingdom is a collaborative effort by the country's judicial system, legislative body, and
executive branch.

First, rule of law had been a judicial priority for a long time before to the passage of ECA 1972
and HRA 1998. Judicial scrutiny has limited the scope of the state and preserved fundamental
liberties. In cases like Bancoult v. Belmarsh, which found the government to be in violation of
fundamental and community rights, and Entick v. Carrington, which held that public bodies had
no right to search private property without authorization, judicial review has ensured that the rule
of law is upheld. Because of its failure to protect citizens' rights, the government was found in
contempt in the case of M v. Home Office. The courts, however, did not uphold Malone v. MPC
and GCHQ's plaintiffs' rights to privacy and free association. When an act of Parliament
explicitly abolishes a basic right and the judiciary is bound to uphold it under the principle of
Parliamentary supremacy, as in the case of the War Damages Act, which overruled the House of
Lords decision in Burma Oil Company v. Lord Advocate, the situation becomes even more dire.
Sunkin emphasizes that the common law is a fragile and ambiguous vehicle for upholding rule of
law due to these arbitrary judgements, yet rule of law is still an important concept in the judicial
system.

By passing the European Communities Act of 1972 and the Human Rights Act of 1998 and
creating a committee to guarantee that parliament legislates in conformity with international
human rights standards, parliament has ensured and supported the defense of rule of law in
recent years. The Constitutional Committee on Human Rights of the House of Lords is a prime
example.

However, the HLs' judgement in R v Davies was overturned by the Criminal Evidence (Witness
Anonymity) Act of 2008, and the aforementioned War Damages Act was found to be a violation
of basic rights. Parliament's respect for the rule of law is demonstrated by CRA 2005.

The Lord Chancellor provides legal counsel to the British government. After Prime Minister
Tony Blair removed Lord Irvine, the post of Lord Chancellor was changed, and in CRA 2005,
for the first time, a statutory reference was made to the doctrine of rule of law and its defense by
the Lord Chancellor.

Two of its members, Helena Kennedy and Philips Sands QC, were outspoken in their opposition
to the disastrous Bill of Rights 2011, which they saw as the government's attempt to divorce
from the European Union and jeopardize human rights safeguarded by the European Convention
on Human Rights - ECHR and the Human Rights Act of 1998 - HRA.
Rule of Law Answer

Given the uncodified nature of the UK's constitution, one must agree that the doctrine of Rule of
Law is crucial if the basic fundamental rights, such as the right to life, liberty, property,
expression, etc., are guaranteed by the constitution. This is because, as Sir John Laws argues,
"now it is only by means of compulsory law that effective rights can be accorded, so that the
medium of rights' Judicial enforceability is the law itself”.