Rule of law in the United States


Have you been a fan of the “Harry Potter” series and novels as a child? If yes, then you will definitely understand my next point very well. Do you remember how in ‘Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix’, Harry Potter was sent a notice from the Ministry of Magic for improperly using magic in a defense attack against the Dementors? Do you remember how Dumbledore ran Hogwarts School with specific rules and regulations? And do you remember how Professor Umbridge was entrusted with all the administration but was later removed because of her tyranny? All of these examples were just a few examples of the rule of law being followed at Hogwarts.

Rule of Law: A Basic Feature of the Constitution

The term ‘rule of law’ is derived from the French expression ‘la principle de legalite’. This expression means a government based on the principles of law. The expression ‘rule of law’ was first coined by Sir Edward Coke. It was named after Professor A.V. Dicey in his book The Law of the Constitution (1885)‘ was expressed in This development first took place in the United Kingdom and was later adopted by the United States of America and India. The rule of law in the United States of

America is an accepted concept where all US citizens, institutions, authorities, and institutions are accountable and responsible for publicly promulgated laws. These laws apply equally and are imposed equally against all. The adjudication process should be free and fair. All these laws should be in line with international human rights principles. An important role is played by the courts in upholding the principles of the rule of law. The principle against discrimination in the country’s laws often comes as a defense of the minority communities of the state. US ConstitutionEquality before the law has been given a lot of importance. It also provides for strict punishment for the majority community for violating the fundamental, constitutional and legal rights of minorities. 

Low us

Other Essential Features of the US Constitution

The rule of law, federalism and the principle of separation of powers are at the heart of the US Constitution. Apart from these basic features, there are many other elements which together constitute the US Constitution. These are the following:

people’s government

Firstly, the US Constitution is accepted and legitimized by the people when it benefits them and provides them with basic rights and freedoms. The US Constitution is by the people and for the people. These features are also embedded in the Preamble of the US Constitution. The US Constitution is not the work of the government, but the work of the people who make up the government. A government without a constitution is compared to power without rights.

political responsibility

Furthermore, the US Constitution states that the US government is politically responsible to its citizens and states. This responsibility is exercised through a system of checks and balances and accountability. 

Low uk

limited government

Furthermore, the US Constitution states that the US government is by nature a limited government. The political and legal limits imposed on the government through the constitution prevent it from being illiberal, vague or arbitrary towards its subjects. 

separation of powers

Furthermore, the US Constitution states that in order to achieve limited government, the powers of government must be fixed and distributed. This is achieved by division and separation of powers between the organs of government. 

bill of rights

The US Constitution is considered the Bill of Rights. This is because it aims to provide and protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, as well as to maintain a system of checks and balances on the functioning of the federal government and to interfere with the citizens’ exercise of these rights. 

A Brief History Behind the Concept of Rule of Law 

Beginning in the 13th century AD, the concept of the rule of law was introduced by Sir Edward Coke and Prof. AV Daisey’s vision, a brief description of which is given below. It was due to Coke and Dicey that the concept was made a theory, but the origins can be traced back to several rules historically. This can be seen as:

Magna Carta (1215)

Article 39 of the Magna Carta (1215) enshrined the value of the rule of law, stating that no person shall be deprived of his liberty, exiled, or punished except by legal judgment. This article ensured the right to liberty, personal liberty, right to life and right to property to the people in the state. This gave them protection from the arbitrary rule of the king. It incorporated the rule that judgment against a person must be made in accordance with law. It talked about following due process which we know today as due process. This is how the concept of due process was first established in the United Kingdom, and then adopted in the United States.

Federalist Papers

In 1788, James Madison wrote in his Federalist Paper No. 51I wrote that when a government is formed, it is established and administered by men. Thus, the government has been entrusted with the power to control the people and then also to control itself. This issue was discussed and addressed by the American constitution makers and policy makers. As a solution, they decided to divide the powers of the government by creating different branches. Since then the separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary has come into vogue. This separation of powers in America was done to ensure that no body is vested with excessive powers and thus these powers are not misused. The principle of separation of powers provides checks and balances in the US government. The principle ensures that no individual is considered above the law. 

Overview of Elizabeth Stanton

Elizabeth Stanton, a notable social worker observed in 1869 that the rule of law can be maintained in a state where the citizens obey the law as well as respect it. Emphasizing the importance of men obeying the laws, Stanton stated that punishing for contempt and keeping the rule of law would be impossible and onerous if men chose not to obey the laws. Stanton also focused on the importance of making laws in a way that would be good for the people to obey. Otherwise, the law would lose the respect of its citizens, and this would lead to disobedience and anarchy. Law-abiding people are a part of the social contract. When people obey the laws, they are provided with social benefits and social order in return from the government. 

Rule of Law: An Insight

The rule of law is the principle that ‘no person is above the law.’ Law is not something that can be created by someone’s act or wish. It can be discovered only from the truth already present in nature. An essential principle governing the rule of law is its characteristic of restraining the power of the government. The rule of law focuses on the principle that the government should act in accordance with the laws and regulations of the country. The government should always follow the due process of law. These principles provide protection against arbitrary rule of the government and thus protect the interests of the people.

Low united

Theory on the Concept of Rule of Law

The rule of law in America developed with the contributions of many theorists. It evolved through these principles and its concept kept on evolving according to the changing needs of the society. Some of these principles were the following:

coke’s rule of law theory

The concept of the rule of law has its origins in the 13th century AD when judge Henry de Bracton stated that the king should be subject to God and the law. This was the genesis of the idea, which was later shaped by Sir Edward Coke. 

Sir Edward Coke explained that the rule of law should have the following elements:

  1. There must be an absence of arbitrary powers or arbitrary use of powers by the government, and
  2. He told the right way to punish. Coke said that, according to the rule of law, no person should be punished except for the violation of the law. He further clarified that such violation can be punished only if it is established and proved in the courts of the country in a legal manner. 

These principles introduced the concept of rule of law. 

Criticism of Coke’s rule of law theory

Coke’s theory of the rule of law introduced the concept of the rule of law. It came with some criticisms. The theory was fiercely criticized by Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes criticized Coke’s theory of general law, pointing out the subjectivity and indeterminacy of artificial reason. Hobbes referred to the doctrine as the doctrine of artificial reason. Coke described reason as the heart of theory but Hobbes was of the view that reason is a concept well understood by lawyers and law makers. This is more in proverb than in use. 

Dicey’s rule of law theory

After the invention of Coke’s theory, Professor A.V. Dicey in his book talked about the rule of law consisting of the following elements:

  1. There should be absolute supremacy of the law of the land,
  2. There should be a complete absence of arbitrary powers of government, and
  3. Even the broad discretionary authority of the government can be termed as arbitrary. 

Professor Dyce states that the rule of law consists of the following principles:

  1. supremacy of law

Dicey said that the most basic but important provision of the rule of law is the supremacy of laws. Under this doctrine, no one can be punished except for the violation of law and such violation can be done only after it is legally proved in a court of law. This principle also states that the law is supreme and treats everyone equally. It is the same for a common man as it can be for a government official. Everyone is bound to follow the laws of the country. Due process must be followed by the courts in establishing violations. 

2. Equality before law

This principle states that no person is above the law. Everyone is seen and treated equally under the law. In the United States, people of all classes, castes, creeds, colors and races are treated equally under the US Constitution. Equality before the law is highly valued in America. 

3. Predominance of legal sense

Legal sense refers to the sense of justice. This principle says that law and justice are coincidental. It states that the law must follow justice, which means that the law must follow the law and not vice versa. Dicey believed that rights such as the right to personal liberty, the right to liberty, should be granted by judicial precedent rather than by the US Constitution. Rights must be granted by the judiciary, and the US Constitution is the result of these rights. Constitution should not be its source. 

Criticism of Dicey’s rule of law theory

In the 19th century Dicey’s theory of the rule of law was appropriately accepted. However, it was criticized by many theorists in the years to come. Some of the criticisms of Dicey’s rule of law theory are mentioned below:

  • Dicey said that the constitution of Britain was prepared according to the rule of law. It was opposed by theorist GW Paton. Paton opposed Dicey’s view, saying that the Constitution of the United Kingdom was the result of years of political struggle and learning, not a clearly and logically derived legal principle of the rule of law. 
  • Dicey focused on the concept of equality before law and described it as an essential principle of the rule of law. This approach was criticized by Wake and Forsyth, who drew attention to the principle of rex non-protest precare. This principle states that ‘the king can do no wrong’. This doctrine gave an upper hand to the ruler of the state by providing immunity from the laws of the land. This was a violation of the principle of equality before the law and thus, Wake and Forsyth argued, there was in fact no equality before the law. 
  • WI Jennings criticized Dicey’s doctrine of the supremacy of law. Jennings criticized this theory by stating that Dicey distinguished between arbitrary powers and discretionary powers but failed to determine the factors that differentiate between the two. He further criticized that, according to Dicey, the supremacy of law negated the excessive discretionary powers of the government, but Dicey, ‘How much is too much?’ Failing to answer the question, Jennings stated that even though Dicey’s theory contained these principles, the reality was different. In fact, arbitrary powers/excessive discretionary powers were exercised by several government authorities and departments.

Evolution of the Rule of Law in America

The rule of law in America developed when it was first adopted from the United Kingdom, and thereafter, the idea was conceptualized through a series of phases and discussions and legal commentaries.

adopt from the united kingdom 

The rule of law was first adopted in 1787. American policymakers and lawmakers adopted the concept from the United Kingdom, where it had been prevalent since medieval times. By incorporating the doctrine into the workings of American government, policymakers often described the doctrine as ‘the government of law, not of the people’. Apart from Magna Carta (1215) where King John decided to follow English law, the idealisation of the concept also has traces of ancient Roman jurisprudence. Henry de Bracton emphasized the fact that the ruler (king) should not be subject to the people of the state, but to the supreme power and law of God, Because it is the law by which the king is made. The North American English colonies also believed that the king’s supremacy was derived from the law. Therefore the king should obey the supreme law. 

Dr. Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians (1610)

The principle of judicial review was emphasized in the case of Dr. Thomas Bonham v. The College of Physicians (1610). Judicial review was considered a fundamental principle towards achieving the implementation of the rule of law. In this case, Chief Justice Coke emphasized that judges should be given the power to strike down any Act of Parliament if they see that it is against the principles of law and justice. Such an Act of Parliament should also be declared void when it is against the common law of the country. Giving these reasons, the court concluded in this case that the judiciary should have the power of judicial review.

power of judicial review of the court

Even though the above case emphasized the power of judicial review of the courts and observed that such a power should be exercised, it was largely inactive in subsequent years. In 1776, Supreme Court justices called the whole notion contradictory because of the presence of the doctrine of legislative supremacy. The principle of legislative supremacy gives the highest degree of power to policy makers and law makers and makes it impossible for judges to declare any Act of Parliament void because that act is created and protected under the principle of legislative supremacy.

Constitutional supremacy 

The Federal Constitution of 1787 introduced the concept of ‘constitutional supremacy’. It affected the society significantly as it increased the importance of the US Constitution and gave everyone an obligation to follow it. The scope of constitutional supremacy limited the federal government, government officials, senators as well as citizens under Article VI to be the supreme law of the land.

Martin Luther King Jr. (1963)

Sir Martin has made significant contributions to the field of law and justice. He once wrote a letter from Birmingham Jail in which he discussed the difference between law and justice. He believed that the law, even when applied equally, did not guarantee a fair result. He believed that a person who once broke the law but willingly accepted the punishment in order to awaken the consciousness of the society towards justice and injustice, actually has the highest regard for the law in his mind. Sir Martin focused on the importance of fair justice and stated that a society, which aims to establish and follow the rule of law, must ensure that the rule of law guarantees justice in the end.

Rule of Law in Times of Stress (2003)

An article contributed by US Judge Diane Wood discusses the importance of transparency in a legal system. He focused on the importance of a transparent legal system where neither the law nor due process is secret. Focusing on the importance of uniformity in law, he said that such a transparent law should not be arbitrary and should be such that people can understand it. Speaking further about transparency in law, he said that transparency not only means that the citizens know what the law is but also the reason behind the enforcement of such law. Furthermore, the rule of law must ensure that following it must end with predictable consequences.

Rule of Law and the US Constitution

As discussed earlier, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All other laws, government acts, rules and regulations etc. follow the rules of the constitution. A government that runs according to the constitution is called “constitutionalism”. When a government maintains its constitutionality then only it is considered a “constitutional government”. A constitutional government follows the principles of the constitution, as well as derives power and authority from it. Constitutionalism prevails when there are reasonable restrictions on the powers of the government and arbitrariness is removed with the help of separation and balance of power. Simply put, constitutionalism is the adherence to the rule of law by a government and its constitution.

The government and its officials are entrusted with the responsibility of upholding constitutionality through the rule of law in America. They protect the rights and liberties of individuals by enforcing the rule of law as a basic feature of the US Constitution. The principles of constitutional supremacy and judicial review were the first to establish the rule of law in the American judicial system. This happened through historical decisions and their judicial interpretations. In this context, the most important decision was set in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Following the introduction of the Supremacy Clause in 1787 and the development of the concept of constitutional supremacy, decisions along similar lines of doctrine followed. In the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the principle was applied and discussed. It was observed that an Act of Parliament which may be inconsistent with the US Constitution shall be void. The judgment established some important principles:

  1. Federal laws inconsistent with the US Constitution are invalid (constitutional supremacy), and
  2. The judges were vested with the power to decide the constitutionality of federal laws (judicial review). 

facts of the case

The case involved a dispute between President John Adams and the next incoming President, Thomas Jefferson. In 1800, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party defeated John Adams’s Federalist Party in the presidential election. While John Adams enjoyed power, he made friends and allies and appointed them to high positions in the administration and judiciary. Adams, before leaving office, was unable to commission certain appointments, and during this time, Jefferson assumed power. Jefferson, through his Secretary of State, James Madison, blocked the appointment of these officers. William Marbury, who was to be appointed as a justice of the peace for Washington, D.C., sued Madison for the appointment. Marbury requested the Supreme Court to issue a mandamus against Madison’s action to compel him to fulfill his legal obligation.

court decision

Chief Justice Marshall ruled in favor of Marbury. He said that it was Marbury’s right to be served by the commission and that by preventing it, President Jefferson and his party were violating the supreme laws of the land. Justice Marshall said that a writ petition could be filed against the Secretary of State and said that the Jeffersonian government could not block Marbury’s appointment. 

However, Justice Marshall then sided with Jefferson and Madison. This was because Justice Marshall held that the judiciary did not have the power to issue writs of mandamus. Marbury was seeking a mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789 . The act was inconsistent with the US Constitution as it violated Article III of Section 2 of the Constitution. By this, Justice Marshall established the principle of constitutional supremacy. It was a part of the principles of rule of law. Justice Marshall further explained that between the Judiciary Act (1789) and the US Constitution, the Constitution would prevail because it is the supreme law of the land. Thus the Judiciary Act of Congress was declared invalid as a violation of the Constitution. 

The case became particularly important not because of the decision that it delivered, but for the principles that it established when determining the case. The case followed the principle of constitutional supremacy. The judiciary also exercised its power of judicial review by declaring an act void for violating the constitution. This case is of great importance in the history of America for establishing and maintaining the separation of powers principle in the country. These characteristics together constitute the rule of law as we call it today. It was observed that the US Constitution and the power of judicial review in the US is an extension of the principle of the rule of law. Thus the principle of ‘government of laws and not of men’ became the principle of the American legal system and governance. 

The rule of law says that no person can do better than the law of the land. Law should be made for public welfare and everyone should follow it. Even the law makers (Legislative), the enforcers of the laws (Executive) and all the officials and people in power must obey the law. Law inconsistent with the US Constitution is not valid. Rule of law also means equality before the law. A law which is discriminatory in nature, or is ambiguous as to the rights of a certain section of society as compared to another, is not valid. Rule of law is a set of certain standards, if followed, the law becomes valid and good. A good law is supposed to govern people, not coerce, and it gives enough room for the rights and freedoms of each individual. Law should be such that gives freedom, But not the license to do whatever you want. Thus, the purpose of the rule of law is to strike the right balance between liberty and reasonable restriction. Finally, the most basic and essential element is obedience to the Supreme Law. The Supreme Court of the United States is intended to act as the watchdog of the US Constitution to maintain the purity of law and to publish contempts and violations. Various branches or organs of the government were given the power to perform this function. The most basic and essential element is the observance of the Supreme Law. The Supreme Court of the United States is intended to act as the watchdog of the US Constitution to maintain the purity of law and to publish contempts and violations. Various branches or organs of the government were given the power to perform this function. The most basic and essential element is the observance of the Supreme Law. The Supreme Court of the United States is intended to act as the watchdog of the US Constitution to maintain the purity of law and to publish contempts and violations. Various branches or organs of the government were given the power to perform this function. 

The US President is the supreme authority who is entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the rule of law and constitutionalism in the US. The President must ensure that the government, officials, states and all laws of the country are in compliance with the US Constitution. This obligation vests on the President from the day he takes the oath and resumes the office of the President. He takes a pledge to defend and defend the US Constitution ( under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 ). The senators and other representatives of the United States also take an oath of allegiance to these pledges. As the head and supreme authority of the executive, it is the President’s duty to ensure that the rule of law is followed in America.

United States v. United Mine Workers (1947)

United States v. United Mine Workers (1947 )It was observed by Justice Felix Frankfurter of the US Supreme Court, deciding the case of, that in order to achieve a free society laws must be administered through an independent judiciary. Absolute power in the hands of a few will lead to anarchy and tyranny. When the judiciary is absolutely free from political pressures and influences, it is called an independent judiciary. Justice Frankfurter believed that an independent judiciary was necessary to uphold the rule of law. The independence of the judiciary will result in fair judgments and equal opportunity for every person to be heard and guarantee of justice. Decisions made by a court will also be subject to appeal and review from a higher court. This will ensure upholding of the rule of law by the courts by creating accountability. 

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Focusing on the principle of equality before the law under the rule of law, Justice Hugo Black held in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963 ) that every person, including an indigent criminal defendant, has a right to counsel. He observed that if a poor alleged criminal cannot afford to hire a lawyer to represent his case, the state must provide him with the necessary legal aid. He ratified the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitutionhighlighted that guarantees assistance of counsel to criminal defendants. Justice Black held that there cannot be a claim of fairness in trial if the defendant is not given equal standing before the law. If a defendant faced a trial without legal aid because he could not afford it, the trial could not be considered a fair trial. He said that since its inception, the US Constitution has focused on procedural and substantive safeguards to ensure a fair trial in fair courts and tribunals, where everyone is equal before the law. This is the rule of law.

Interview with Justice Anthony Kennedy

US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy talks about the rule of law in an interview with ABA President William Newcomb (2007 ) that the rule of law in the US is intended to promote and ensure liberty, justice and equality It is believed. The primary purpose of the rule of law in the United States is to promote basic rights. These values ​​are further promoted by the US Constitution, which guarantees the basic rights of US citizens. 

benefits of rule of law

The rule of law brought about positive changes in American society. It brought equality among people and provided equal protection before the law. Mentioned below are the many advantages that the principle encompasses:

  1. The rule of law ensures and encourages judicial independence.
  2. The rule of law upholds the values ​​of the constitution. 
  3. The rule of law limits the powers of the government and prevents arbitrariness.
  4. The rule of law promotes transparency and equality in the legislative functions of government. 
  5. Rule of law protects people from inequality and discrimination and protects their legal rights, constitutional rights as well as civil rights.
  6. By ensuring equality of opportunity and employment, the rule of law facilitates the economic development of the state as more people have the opportunity to work.
  7. The rule of law ensures the two most important features in any democracy: constitutional supremacy and the power of judicial review of the judiciary. 
  8. The rule of international law promotes international peace, security and equality. 
  9. The rule of law provides an accountable government characterized by transparency, probity and fairness.
  10. The rule of law establishes a stable, corruption-free regime.  

criticism of the rule of law

Since the inception of the concept, the rule of law has been criticized over the stages and periods of its development. While some criticize it as being influenced by political pressures, others believe that it favors the influential sections of the society. Feminists criticized the theory for its failure to value and address the atrocities of women. The criticisms of the theory of rule of law are mentioned below:

Criticism of a ‘legal person’ and its construction

While legal theorists argued it developed naturally, believers in Marxism and feminist movements argued it was the result of social forces and factors. Marxism criticizes how the rule of law conceptualises the independent and autonomous legal personality. Marxism believes that the concept of free and equal individuals is not true in a society that is the result of production and the economic market. The rule of law and equality before law overshadows the honest construction of society with the hidden notion of legal personality. 

Feminists have criticized the rule of law for how a legal person is understood. She argued from the point of view of feminist jurisprudence that a legal person under the rule of law is primarily focused on men. The very nature of the portrayal of a legal person has shadowed and silenced the experience of women. It is said so because the rule of law focuses only on providing equality in the public sphere, which inevitably affects men. Atrocities against women in the private sector receive little or no attention. 

Critique of the features of equality, neutrality and generality

The rule of law claims to guarantee equality for all and equality before the law for all classes. It claims to be neutral to all genders and categories of people. Marxism criticizes these features as they exist only on paper. Marxism believes that the rule of law is a dominant ideology, created and modified for the benefit of the dominant sections of society. As the concept of a legal person itself is not true for its application in society, thus the logical argument of equality and neutrality is also not true. 

Feminists have criticized the concept of neutrality in the rule of law, saying that women’s rights have been suppressed and their voices stifled. As the rule of law marginally addresses the rights and grievances of women, it cannot be called neutral. The rule of law is insufficient in providing legal equality to women. 

The rule of law is criticized for favoring the dominant sections of the society. Thus, the beneficiaries of this theory are ultimately the capitalists. Those who do not belong to these influential sections of the society suffer at the hands of law and order which does not give any legal importance to their rights. The rule of law is further criticized for the increasing discrimination in the society and the plight of the poorer sections, who become further oppressed. The dominant class, empowered by the support of law, establishes its dominance over the oppressed class. This in turn widens the gap between the rich and the poor in the society. 

politics in law

The nature of the rule of law is criticized for being arbitrariness and influenced by political pressures. Liberals claim the rule of law to be free from political influence, but this has been refuted by critical legal scholars. They believe that law is the result of supremacy of political conflicts between different political groups. Feminists criticize the rule of law for being discriminatory in many concepts and procedures, such as rape trials. 

an influential ideology

The rule of law has been criticized for being a dominant ideology. Marxism considers an ideology to be socially defined as well as the result of social factors shaping its existence. The rule of law expresses its ideology to be neutral, but in a developed society, ideologies differ for different sections of people. emancipation of the oppressed sections of the society, There is a very different ideology and outlook on rights than the elite classes. A neutral ideology can be claimed only when all aspects and factors that shape ideologies in society are fully understood. The rule of law is criticized for not fully understanding the material history of society since its inception. Ideologies take different forms from socially conflicting ideas and experiences. The rule of law only considers ideology from the perspective of ‘what is more obvious’. It has given legitimacy to the ideology of the dominant class. The dominant sections of the society dominate the social relations and the rule of law is also understood by it. 

rule of international law

International law has never specifically defined what the rule of law is as a concept, but it has been considered synonymous with law and justice, and also a political ideology that guides international society as a whole. Is. As the name suggests, the rule of international law is concerned with the domestic laws of all states in compliance with international norms of justice, and that all states comply with international rules of law and justice. Furthermore, the rule of international law also ensures that the domestic laws of different states are equal to each other and based on the same standards of norms. as it has always been, The purpose of the rule of international law is to protect human rights and international norms and standards are expressed in a way that serves this purpose. The rule of international law binds not only states but also international bodies and organizations that work together in achieving a common objective. Therefore, the rule of international law can be considered as a normative rule of law for all international organizations, bodies and states to frame their regulatory laws. 

Mentioned below are some of the elements of the rule of international law:

  • The nature of the law must be definite. It should be concise and should provide precise guidance in solving the questions.
  • The rule of international law must be guided by the principle of “equality before the law” and must be followed by every international body, organization and state.
  • There should be no scope for arbitrariness. Law should restrict the exercise of power by the authorities and protect human rights.
  • The rule of international law must be applied in its true spirit to settle disputes, implement decisions and formulate policies.

International Treaties and Conventions promote the rule of law in the international arena. The United Nations Secretary-General explains the rule of law as the principle that all people, organizations and states are accountable to publicly declared laws and their associated international norms and standards. It is characterized by separation of powers, supremacy of law, equality before law, fairness, absence of arbitrariness, legal certainty and transparency (Report of the Secretary-General: Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Post-conflict Societies, 2004) .


The rule of law is an age-old principle. It was first seen in the 13th century AD and has evolved since then. The concept has become a fundamental principle in the national and international fields. International law organizations set international norms and standards for the rule of law. These countries draw inspiration from these standards and incorporate them into their domestic laws. States follow the rule of law through their constitution. The principle of rule of law was first introduced in Britain by Sir Edward Coke and Professor A.V. Dicey, and thereafter, it gained recognition in the US and India. The US Constitution adopted the principle of rule of law as a basic feature and made laws in pursuance of this principle.

This article has been written from the information available on the internet and some books, the purpose of this article is only to educate people about the law and our purpose is not to fear or say any law is wrong and you can use it only as an education. take as

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You cannot copy content of this page

error: Content is protected !!