okay in this video i want to talk about the rule of law
most people most people will accept that the rule of law
is a good idea it's a good concept it's a good principle to organize society in a civilized way
the rule of law is widely accepted internationally but it's never really been defined as such
there's no statutory definition of what the rule of law is so in this video i want to look look at
how the rule of law or the concept or principle of the rule of law has evolved and exactly what
it means essentially everybody recognizes that it's analogous to the notion of good
and everyone is for us but have contrasting different views about what it actually is
there's a famous legal or professor of law rather from i think oxford university called
professor dicey and he had three broad principles three broad characteristics for the rule of law
in explaining it so he says one in the first place no man is punishable or
can lawfully be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law
established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land
so you cannot be punished or to made suffer unless you have been found to be in breach of the law
before the ordinary courts of the land whether that's england or the united states or ireland
his second meaning dicey's second meaning of the rule of law he says when we speak of the
rule of law as a characteristic of our country not only that with us no man is above the law
but every man whatever his rank or condition is subject to the ordinary law of the realm
and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunes in other words no matter whether you are
a prince or a pauper regardless of where you are on the social spectrum nobody no person is above
the law and thirdly dicey said and this is a sort of a racist view but he said there remains yet a
third and different sense in which the rule of law or the pronoun predominance of the legal spirit
may be described as a special attribute of english institutions that's what dicey said that was a
special attribute of english institutions that's clearly nonsense it is bordering on racist because
the rule of law is widely applied everywhere or not everywhere in the world but right across
the world without borders necessarily defining where it can be accepted and applied and so on
there's a strong international consensus then that the rule of law is a meaningful
concept and an extremely important one however there is a recognition that the definition
of the rule of law for inclusion in any statute is difficult and hasn't really happened to date
there's a number of principles however the core principle is that all persons and authorities
within a state whether public or private should be bound by an entitled to the benefit of laws
publicly made taking effect in the future and publicly administered in the courts
secondly the law must be accessible and understandable clear and predictable
questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law
and not the exercise of discretion so that doesn't mean that judges or officials or decision makers
cannot exercise discretion but the exercise of discretion cannot be unconstrained
as to be potentially arbitrary so no discretion may be legally unfettered
the laws of the land should apply equally to all save to the extent that objective differences
justify differentiation that may well be the case for example in a situation where there's positive
discrimination in favor of somebody perhaps for a disability in accessing work and promotion
and opportunity in the workforce and so on by and large the laws of the land should apply equally
to all ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them
in good faith fairly for the purpose for which the powers were conferred without exceeding the
limits of such powers and not unreasonably that's where the whole question of judicial review arises
the law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights the rule of law requires
that fundamental rights such as the freedom of belief and practice should be protected but it
does not require that they should be absolute we've seen that in ireland we have seen the
conflict or the clash between the right to assemble the right to published of the right to
protest versus the obligation on the government on the state rather to bring in laws for the likes of
covid 19 and so on so rights are not absolute my right to my good name will clash with you right to
freedom of expression freedom of publication and there will be always some healthy tension there
between rights between competing rights means must be provided for resolving without prohibitive
cost or inordinate delay civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve
adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair and the rule of law requires
complaints by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law
so the rule of law is something that is generally accepted as a good thing
and it will have all of the characteristics that i just mentioned there are now
historical milestones then in arriving at an idea of the rule of law goes back centuries
it goes back to the magna carta of 1215 it goes back to habeas corpus the idea to challenge
unlawful detention the legal entitlement to do so it goes back to the abolition of torture
the petition of rights from 1628 then there was chief justice of the king's bench sir matthew hale
his resolutions these are all founding stones or the stepping stones on the way to an understanding
and an acceptance of the rule of law the habeas corpus amendment act 1679 the bill of rights 1689
an act of settlement 1701 the constitution of the united states of america the french
declaration of the rights of man and the citizen 1789 the american bill of rights the law of war
the universal declaration of human rights these are the stepping stones these are the steps on
the ladder as well which has arrived at uh and given us this concept this idea of the rule of law
we all most of us accept that the rule of law must be recognized because it makes for
the organization of society in a way that we can all be treated fairly and treated lawfully and
treated with a great degree of respect and we have rights and we are entitled to enforce those rights
and so on the rule of law obviously will give rise then to the question of civil disobedience
what is as permissible to what laws is it permissible to breach to ignore can we
take an a la carte approach to laws can we choose which laws we like and which laws we don't like
the rule of law is a concept it's a principle that is vital in my view and in the view of
international states and so on to the good functioning of society and to protection of
liberties the protection of rights for all of us anyway i hope you have a better understanding now
of what the rule of law is it is a general sort of a principle it is widely accepted
there's no statutory definition as such but the principles and the characteristics
the features that i've referred to in this video are what you'd associate with
uh the rule of law hope you find the video useful if you do i'd appreciate
if you give the thumbs up down below and you may be interested in subscribing to my youtube channel
you