What is the rule of law? Does it exist in the UK?
Doctrine of rule of law (common law) is different from procedure established by law (american law) in that the principles of natural justice necessarily apply to the former while they can be extended by legislative action to the latter.Indian constitution mentions procedure established by law. However doctrine of rule of law was extended to indian legal system via Minerva Mills case in 1980s.
Why is the rule of law better than the rule of man?
Your question is based on a false premise that they are different. The “rule of law” IS the rule of man - unless the law you are talking about is natural law - in that case, the rule of law is better than the rule of man because natural law is immutable and universal, while the rule of man is arbitrary, changes at the whim of the rulers and violates natural law.
What is the Rule of Law?
The rule of law is a legal maxim according to which no one has immunity from the law. The phrase has been used since the 17th century, but the concept can be traced to ancient Greece. Aristotle put it this way: "law should govern". Rule of law stands in contrast to the idea that the sovereign is above the law (rex lex), a feature of Roman Law and other legal systems. One way to be free from the rule of law is by denying that an enactment has the necessary attributes of law. The rule of law has therefore been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings". At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" and a substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law. 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 go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.
PLEASE explain to me what the rule of law is?
What "the rule of law" means varies by context and jurisdiction, but it's most important application is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with due process. In modern western terms, the hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law include a clear separation of powers, legal certainty, and the principle of equality before the law. The rule of law is fundamental to a democracy, because in order for a democracy to exist, each citizen must be equal. And without it, the government is free to pass or repeal laws on their whim, and pick and choose how to apply those laws.
In the case cruz v fagor america, inc what rule of law was applied?
The issue was the validity of the service of the plaintiffs sworn affidavit. The rule of law at issue there would be that "An unrebuted affidavit is the truth" The Defendant failed to respond / rebut the plaintiffs affidavit and was thereby in default.. The affidavit was then the truth and a summery judgment was issued from the bench. After some wrangling about the service the plaintiff prevailed.
Why is the rule of law important?
Rule of law is important because:It checks abuse of power by authorities.It empowers individuals with rights which cannot be easily taken-away. It treats everyone equally without discrimination. Its supremacy ensures no person can claim to be above law.It ensures adherence of principles of natural justice like: giving reasonable opportunity, impartiality of decision, etc.It leads to fairness, both substantive and procedural.
What is the definition of the rule of law?
1776 -The law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. No one is exempted from it nor can anyone grant exemption from the application of the law. The rule of law was to guarantee equal access to justice and preservation of human liberty for all. The issue of slavery posed a great difficulty for the wording in the Constitution's ratification process and specifically contradicted the "rule of law". The 1787 Constitution was ratified after a number of carefully thoughout compromises denying legal equality to slaves and women, but purporting the "rule of law" as free white men were considered "We, the people".
What are the limitations of the rule of law?
A2A.Dicey was biggest proponent of Rule of Law. According to him Rule of law meant equal protection of law and equal treatment of all classes. However dicey’s thesis were not valid in few sense-Dicey failed to distinguish between arbitrary action and discretion.Dicey advocated total absence of discretion. For him discretion meant untrammelled and unguided power which leads to corruption.Droit was against droit administraff prevailing in France. According to him U.K. was more successful as compared to France but it was not so.He believed that there is absence of discretion in U.K. but courts used to exercise discretion while exercising their powers of Writs.Apart from all this there are various limitations of Rule of law-Immunity provided to ambassadors, Judges and legislators under article 105 and 194 respectively.Sometimes it's not feasible to follow the procedure in emergency cases.Preventive detention is against Rule of Law but it is followed to maintain public order.
What disadvantage results from making law through cases from a rule of law perspective?
It’s a lot harder to find out what the law IS.In Civil law countries, you grab a copy of the civil code or whatever law it is that applies.In common law countries, you need to retrace several dozen, if not hundreds, of decisions made by courts, many of them quite old, and decipher what was “reasons” and what was obiter dictum. It can be done, and help exists, but the catch is, what if your “summary helper” is wrong?In civil law, a loophole in legislation is closed by means of analogy (where allowed). In common law, just because it isn’t printed doesn’t mean it’s not out there somewhere.Which makes it really hard to know just what the applicable law is. Not the general lines, but the details. Which in turn makes it hard, from a rule-of-law point of view, to know precisely which behavior is allowed by the law, and which isn’t. Which is bad, because if you want people to respect the law, they need to know the law.Civil law systems tend to be operate with catch-all phrases to cover the inevitable gaps. Common law systems tend to be more specific, but a lot harder to track down in detail. I personally find access to common law more difficult than to civil law.