Aristotle's Understanding Of The Rule Of Law

1447 Words 6 Pages
For many centuries the rule of law developed into a fundamental principle in United Kingdom’s unwritten constitution. It become the core for essential rules and values of the legal system. The concept was significant since it was able to provide stability and equality in the state. The idea has firstly appeared in ancient times, however it came meaningful later in history. Throughout the years various theorists formed their own opinions and created many different views on this concept. They all agreed that law is a bases of a state but it 's application was perceived differently. Thus, today the rule of law become a subject to much discussion and disagreement. The beginning of the theory can be seek in the work of greek philosopher Aristotle, …show more content…
The former assumes that the state is ruled by the law if it fulfills four conditions. Law has to be made by a predetermined procedure, it has to be clear, stable and certain, it is applied equally to all regardless of their status and no one can be punished other than for breaching it. Likewise, the latter agrees on formal school’s conditions but, in addition they claim that the law must uphold human rights. They build on to the concept moral values. Therefore the rule of law can be perceived today as essentially contested. Both schools agree on certain conditions, they don 't deny each other. In fact, they see the bases of the theory exactly in the same way. However, the substantive school includes morale values what make the concept become …show more content…
He agrees with the core statement of the rule of law - both private people and state authorities should be bound by and benefit of laws. However, he believes that it can be applied only if a state owns certain qualifications. He defines eight of them. Correspondingly to Raz and the formal concept, lucidity and easy access of the law are crucial values. Also, he describes the way judiciary system should operate. Firstly he points that questions of legal right and liability should be decided by applying the law and not by exercise of discretion. He refers to the concept of open court procedures. He understands that everyone should have a right to go to court once they are not able to resolve their issues on their own, therefore he states that means must be provided without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay. The other issue he analyses is fairness. Any state procedures should be decided by independent and impartial figure. Additionally Bingham ensures that a person regarded as a subject to any liability or penalty must be informed of what is said against him. It leads to his another point that ministers and public officers shouldn’t abuse their power. In fact he reminds about the separation of powers as a crucial value in guaranteeing the integrity of the courts. For instance one of Bingham’s main principles is that the law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights. His sub-rules are there to

Related Documents

Related Topics