The Rule of Law

1. Law Must Be Accessible, Clear, and Predictable

Elementary justice or, to use the concept often cited by the European Court [the Court of Justice of the European Communities], the need for legal certainty demands that the rules by which the citizen is to be bound should be ascertainable by him (or, more realistically, by a competent lawyer advising him) by reference to identifiable sources that are publicly available.

Why accessibility matters. The rule of law hinges on the ability of individuals to understand and abide by the law. If laws are obscure, complex, or constantly changing, people cannot reasonably be expected to follow them. This accessibility is crucial for both criminal and civil matters, ensuring individuals can avoid penalties and claim their rights.

Commercial implications. Accessible legal rules are vital for trade, investment, and business. Businesses need to operate in environments where the legal framework is clear and predictable. This certainty reduces risk and encourages economic activity. Lord Mansfield emphasized the importance of rules that are "easily learned and easily retained" for merchants.

Challenges to accessibility. Despite its importance, achieving legal accessibility is a constant challenge. Over the past decades, there has been a surge in legislation, often complex and cross-referential, making it difficult even for legal professionals to navigate. This complexity undermines the rule of law by creating uncertainty and hindering understanding.

2. Legal Questions Should Be Resolved by Law, Not Discretion

Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.

The danger of discretion. The rule of law is threatened when decisions about legal rights and liabilities are based on the arbitrary discretion of officials rather than established laws. This can lead to inconsistent and unfair outcomes, undermining the principle of equality before the law. Dicey and Hewart warned against excessive discretionary powers.

Limits to discretion. While some discretion is necessary to handle exceptional cases, it should not be unconstrained. Decision-makers, including judges, should operate within clearly defined criteria and be subject to legal challenge. This ensures that decisions are based on objective standards rather than personal whims.

Judicial discretion. Judges also exercise discretion, but it is not unlimited. They must base their decisions on legal principles and precedents, not personal preferences. While they have a role in developing the law, they cannot create new criminal offenses or radically alter existing laws, as this would undermine predictability and fairness.

3. Equality Before the Law Requires Objective Differentiation

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Core principle. Equality before the law is a cornerstone of a just society. It means that the law should apply equally to all individuals, regardless of their background or status. This principle rejects arbitrary discrimination and ensures that everyone is subject to the same legal standards.

Justified differentiation. While equality is the general rule, some differences in treatment are justified based on objective factors. For example, children, the mentally ill, and prisoners may require different legal treatment due to their specific circumstances. However, any such differentiation must be carefully scrutinized to ensure it is based on real differences and not prejudice.

Historical and contemporary challenges. The pursuit of equality before the law has been a long and ongoing struggle. Historically, many societies have tolerated or even enshrined discrimination based on religion, gender, or race. Even today, non-nationals often face discriminatory treatment, highlighting the need for constant vigilance to ensure that all individuals are treated fairly under the law.

4. Power Must Be Exercised in Good Faith and Reasonably

To remit the maintenance of constitutional right to the region of judicial discretion is to shift the foundations of freedom from the rock to the sand.

Judicial review. Public officials must exercise their powers in good faith, fairly, and for the purpose for which they were conferred. This principle is enforced through judicial review, where courts assess the lawfulness of administrative actions. This ensures that public authorities act within the bounds of the law.

Grounds for review. Unlawfulness in administrative action can take various forms, including bad faith, unfairness, acting beyond the scope of powers (ultra vires), and unreasonableness. These grounds ensure that decisions are made honestly, impartially, and with due consideration for the rights of those affected.

Limits to judicial power. While courts play a crucial role in reviewing administrative actions, they must not overstep their bounds. They should not substitute their own judgment for that of the decision-maker but rather ensure that the decision was made lawfully and reasonably. This balance preserves the separation of powers and respects the expertise of administrative bodies.

5. Fundamental Human Rights Must Be Protected

Unless there is the clearest provision to the contrary, Parliament must be presumed not to legislate contrary to the rule of law.

Human rights as integral. The rule of law requires the protection of fundamental human rights. A state that systematically violates human rights cannot be considered to be observing the rule of law, even if its actions are carried out under the guise of duly enacted laws. This "thick" definition of the rule of law recognizes that justice requires more than just procedural regularity.

Convention rights. The European Convention on Human Rights provides a framework for identifying and protecting fundamental rights. These rights include the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives these rights direct effect in the UK.

Balancing rights. The protection of human rights is not absolute. It often involves balancing the rights of individuals against the interests of the community. This requires careful consideration and a commitment to ensuring that any limitations on rights are necessary, proportionate, and in accordance with the law.

6. Dispute Resolution Must Be Affordable and Timely

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Access to courts. The rule of law requires that individuals have access to courts to resolve civil disputes. An unenforceable right is of little value. This access ensures that legal claims can be adjudicated fairly and impartially.

Obstacles to access. Two major obstacles to accessing justice are cost and delay. High legal fees and lengthy court proceedings can effectively deny justice to those who cannot afford them or who cannot wait for a resolution. This undermines the principle of equality before the law.

Alternative dispute resolution. Mediation, conciliation, and arbitration can provide more affordable and timely alternatives to traditional litigation. These methods can help parties reach mutually acceptable compromises and avoid the expense and delay of court proceedings. However, access to courts remains essential for cases that cannot be resolved through these means.

7. Fair Trial Procedures Are Essential

The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights.

Core of a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of the rule of law. It applies to criminal, civil, and hybrid proceedings. Key elements include fairness to both sides, an independent and impartial court, public proceedings, and the presumption of innocence.

Evolving standards. Fairness is not a static concept. Procedures must evolve to ensure that trials are just and equitable. This includes providing defendants with adequate legal representation, ensuring access to evidence, and protecting against bias.

Independence of judiciary. The independence of judicial decision-makers is crucial. Judges must be free from influence by the government, vested interests, or public opinion. This independence ensures that decisions are based on the law and the facts, not external pressures.

8. International Law Compliance Is a Must

The Rule of Law is the foundation of a civilised society.

International obligations. The rule of law extends to the international sphere, requiring states to comply with their obligations under international law. This includes treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. Compliance with international law is essential for maintaining a stable and just international order.

Necessity of compliance. States must comply with international law because it is in their self-interest to do so. International cooperation is necessary to address many global challenges, such as trade, security, and environmental protection. By adhering to international law, states can foster trust and cooperation.

Challenges to compliance. Despite the importance of international law, there are challenges to its enforcement. There is no international legislature, and the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is consensual. However, states are increasingly held accountable for their actions on the international stage, and violations of international law can have significant consequences.

Last updated: March 11, 2025