Ideally, a change in the law should also take place in the future. Therefore, there is a strong presumption against retroactive or early initiative declaration – and by “early” we mean “within two months of Royal Approval.” The consent of judicial officials is required if any of these options are proposed. In some cases, the rule of law is best served by retroactive or expeditious legislation, but we must ensure that limited exceptions remain the exception. It would not be very difficult to show that the term “rule of law” has become meaningless because of ideological abuses and widespread abuse. Joseph Raz, in particular, argued that the rule of law should be limited to formal values – even if formal values go beyond simply maintaining law and order. These include transparency of legislation, retroactivity of the law, independence of the judiciary and broad access to justice, as well as the right to a fair trial.  He suggests that the rule of law has become the embodiment of general political ideals, distinct from its real meaning: “If the rule of law is the rule of good law, then its nature must be explained, to expound a complete social philosophy.”  Rather, it identifies the principles of “open and relatively stable” legislation and laws that the public can live its life. It may be that the law, as a mere regulator of individual conduct, is quite feasible in an impoverished state and, therefore, a state that maintains law and order, and nothing more, may correspond to a narrow interpretation of the rule of law that simply insists on an unconditional respect for the rules of law by a citizen. In our research, we wanted to understand what the public thinks about the rule of law and the justice system in general. Until its logical conclusion, however, the view of law and order can lead to the suppression of freedom. To illustrate, it is a common cry of politicians that a demonstration, for example, of union members or students violates the rule of law. In a narrower sense, any act involving protest will almost inevitably violate a legal rule, whether or not it is the contested rule. The rule of law is a rare and complex principle in our political tradition.
Unlike other ideals, it has withstood the ravages of constitutional time and remains a contemporary call for political justice. It seems to go beyond partisan concerns and is embraced and revered by virtually every shade of political opinion. The core of the rule of law lies in the enduring values of regularity and restraint, embodied in the slogan of a government of laws, not the slogan of a government of laws, not the rule of law. Men. This catalogue, which is not exhaustive, must be contrasted with the extent to which the government and public officials are subject to the law in the sense that they are accountable for their actions before the ordinary courts, for this was Dicey`s real argument. The doctrine recognizes the need for consistent application of the law, regardless of status. No one is immune from prosecution (except the monarch: the law has no coercive power against the king. Formal accountability to the law is one of the foundations of the rule of law. After a detailed analysis of Dicey`s writings, Professor Jeffrey Jowell concludes: The Attorney General and I have had a number of options. Indeed, there has been a lively debate on how best to proceed to ensure that bills respect the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament as set out in the Scotland Act 1998. In addition, we have ensured that, in carrying out this important legal task, we and the government as a whole have made it clear to the Supreme Court and to the general public that we have nothing to do with the content of either act.
The rule of law thus helps to prevent the infringement of the political sovereignty of the people by manipulating the legal sovereignty of parliament. The fundamental question in this context is to what extent citizens should be compelled to obey unjust laws. Is there an absolute obligation to comply, regardless of the quality of the law? Is the obligation only prima facie? Is there ever a duty not to abide by the law in order to pursue a higher ideal? Each of these vast and timeless philosophical questions underpins the concept of the rule of law. TRS Allan examines Diey`s analysis in detail, focusing on Dicey`s second principle, that of equality before the law. Allan seeks a solution to the apparent paradox arising from Ducey`s insistence that parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law encompass the fundamental doctrines of the Constitution, since the former concept is inherently capable of undermining the latter. By the way, you can see that the examples given today tend to tend in cases where the government was ultimately not the winning party. I make no apologies for this selection – when it comes to how courts that apply the rule of law can hold executive actions accountable, it is not surprising that many of the relevant cases are those in which the government of the day was held accountable. These references are, in my view, an excellent example of how the rule of law and democracy support and reinforce each other. In fact, it has been a privilege to participate in such important work. The defence counsel charged in this case presented the argument with extreme skill, and this argument was the result of lengthy discussions between officials, lawyers and us, as judicial officials, who weighed each part of the claim into fine scales.
This type of review is not possible in criminal trial proceedings, but I must point out that any type of plan or even review of the terms of a jury speech with other defence counsel and the commissioning lawyer will rarely be anything other than helpful. Last but not least, it can heal us when we are tempted to push the points too far or force our arguments while pursuing the right word. For starters, there is no “official” definition of the rule of law. The idea goes back at least as far as the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who wrote that “it is more appropriate for the law to govern than any of the citizens.” The idea of the rule of law is still strong today, and the phrase appears daily in a series of global news. The rule of law is a dynamic concept, the dissemination and realization of which is primarily the responsibility of lawyers, and which should be used not only to safeguard and promote the civil and political rights of individuals in a free society, but also to create the social, economic, educational and cultural conditions in which their legitimate aspirations and dignity can be realized. The rule of law cannot be considered in isolation from political society. The emphasis on the rule of law as a yardstick for measuring both the extent to which government acts among secularists and the extent to which individual rights are legally recognized and protected is inextricably linked to Western democratic liberalism. Therefore, I would just like to say how pleased I am to have been invited to speak to you, and I would like to talk to you about the rule of law and the role of judicial officials in maintaining it. These are subjects that naturally appeal to lawyers regardless of their area of expertise. The rule of law is a political ideal that a legal system may lack, or more or less possess. This is not disputed.
It should also be emphasized that the rule of law is only one of the virtues that a legal system can possess and against which it must be measured.