Another widespread definition of the rule of law has been established by the World Justice Project, an “independent, multidisciplinary organization that works to promote the rule of law worldwide.” [26] Originally founded by the American Bar Association, the World Justice Project is now an independent, multinational, multidisciplinary organization that publishes annual assessments and rankings of the extent to which the rule of law is respected in more than 100 countries around the world. [27] The assessments in each country are based on a thousand household surveys and experts in that country. [28] The World Justice Project`s definition of the rule of law is based on four universal principles: All U.S. government officials, including the president, Supreme Court justices, state justices and legislators, and all members of Congress, are primarily committed to upholding the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human ruler. [52] At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: Parliament is free to decide which laws it drafts, provided that they remain within its enumerated powers and respect the constitutionally protected rights of the individual. Similarly, the judiciary has some discretion,[53] and the executive also has various discretionary powers, including prosecutorial discretion. 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] The law must be superior.
All persons are subject to the law, regardless of their living situation. These four universal principles form a working definition of the rule of law. They have been developed in accordance with internationally recognized norms and standards and tested and refined in consultation with a wide variety of experts worldwide. The principle of equality is a central legal concept. The Greeks had another word – isonomia – that more fully expressed the idea of the equality of all before the law, regardless of their position in society. [41] For some ancient Greek writers, isonomy represented an even higher ideal than democracy. [42] In a democracy, the majority could persecute a minority. However, isonomy requires a society that treats all its citizens equally. As noted above, this fourth principle recognizes that the law may treat categories of persons differently, but requires that the difference in treatment have a rational basis. This idea is reflected in the wording of the fourth principle, which requires that the law be applied equally to all persons “in equal circumstances.” In 1959, a demonstration was held in New Delhi at which the International Commission of Jurists issued a statement on the fundamental principle of the rule of law. The event brought together more than 185 judges, lawyers and law professors from 53 countries. This later became known as the Delhi Declaration.
During the statement, they explained what the rule of law entails. These include certain rights and freedoms, an independent judiciary and social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity. The only aspect not included in the Delhi Declaration was the rule of law, which required judicial oversight of the legislature. [69] Positions and methods of servitude In general, the rule of law implies that the creation of laws, their application and the relationships between legal norms themselves are regulated by law, so that no one – including 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. The rule of law, I believe, is an ideal, an objective, something that must be pursued. As an ideal, it is never fully achieved. Its presence or absence must therefore be assessed relatively; What is possible in highly developed Western democracies may simply not be achievable in a developing country. The principles of the rule of law, for example, are procedural, as laws must be the supreme law of the land, promulgated publicly, also enforced and decided by an independent judiciary.
Additional procedural rules require that laws be applied fairly and equally and that the separation of powers be respected in enactment and jurisdiction. The rule of law is considered one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. [42] Research, like the Global Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: “the extent to which agents trust and respect the rules of society, particularly the quality of contract, police and court enforcement, and the likelihood of crime or violence.” [42] Based on this definition, the Global Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measures of the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as shown in the map on the right. [43] This first principle establishes the essence of the rule of law, which goes back to Aristotle: the rule of law is a “government of law and not by the people”. [32] In Politics, Aristotle wrote: “It is more appropriate for the law to govern than any other citizen.