Rule Of Law

The rule of law is an idealistic concept of characteristics in a legal process, which ought to exist in a good constitutional system. There is controversy over the rule of law because there is no definite meaning of it. For example, there is one view that it should prescribe a form of law and the procedure that should be used to form it. This is supported by Lord Bingham’s sub-rule, “questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not be the exercise of discretion.” If rule of law was used this way, it could have practical use because it does not prescribe particular content for legal rules, which gives a constitutional system the flexibility to form laws. Professor Raz argues that the rule of law is designed to be a subservient role, meant to “enable the law to promote social good” and sacrificing social goods on the basis of rule of law, would make “the law barren and empty”.
This content-free view gives the rule of law a sufficient certain meaning as a procedure to form laws, this could enable legal systems to mask themselves as respectful because they follow these procedures. For example, if a law removed the right for women to vote; this notion would be described as undemocratic. Nonetheless, the parliament would not be held accountable because they had followed the normal procedures. Arguably, the …show more content…
As it has been observed, there is still an academic debate over the definition of the rule of law and I think that whilst, there seems to be a broad understanding of the rule of law, it does not have practical use in the UK Constitutional law. I support the concept, but from the opinions put forward; it appears that the rule of law is limited in contrast to parliamentary sovereignty, which makes it impractical. Once it has a definite meaning, which makes it sufficient, I think the rule of law could work well in UK constitutional