To begin, we must understand the meaning of the rule of law and why the UK courts implement this constitutional principle in day to day practice. British jurist and constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey paved the way for much of our understanding of the rule of law we know today; giving a strong starting point for academics such as Lord Bingham and Joseph Raz whom later on developed the formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. Dicey has three key principles: no punishment unless there is a breach of the law; Law should not be exercised arbitrarily; and there should be a consistency in the creation of law. Dicey simply means that an individual should be aware of laws which apply to them, they are free to act as they please, whether they …show more content…
His next five laws are about how law is applied; agencies of the law must enforce the law using fair and equal processes. Therefore is is clear that formal theories focus on only procedures and application. The substantive theory of the rule of law, it is important to note that the rule of law is inherently cumulative, meaning it is concerned with the same principles as the formal theory of the rule of law, however adds to it by focusing on its content, substantive theorist believe that law’s content must be good in order to comply with the rule of law. Like Raz, Lord Bingham, the key advocate for the substantive theory, also has eight principles, however it is only his fourth principle that is substantive - “the law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights’’ It is evident that this principle is about the substance of law, the substantive theory goes further by explaining law must protect individuals and must not require us to breach our human …show more content…
Raz states that ‘The law can violate people’s dignity in many ways. It is clear that deliberate disregard for the rule of law violates human dignity. It is the business of law to guide human action by affecting people’s options. The violation of the rule of law can take two forms. It may lead to uncertainty or it may lead to frustrated expectations.’ What Raz is saying here is that it is best to adopt the formal theory of the rule of law over substantive, keeping law and human rights separate, otherwise it would clash and not concentrate on the basic formal principles that both theories are concerned with. Take for example, as Raz says ‘uncertainty’ is clear violation of the rule of law, both formal and substantive theories are concerned with this, and this is prevented when agencies of the law i.e. courts provide ‘prospective, open, and clear’ laws. This means that laws should be available to everyone and easy to understand. Therefore the state transporting sections of individuals to concentration camps can be seen, in theory, from the viewpoint of the state in question, law abiding to the UK courts. However, as the UK courts uphold the rule of law, no one should be punished by the unless there is a breach of
What is a model? “A model is a simplified representation of reality it does not constitute reality itself. Models purposely ignore certain aspects of reality and focus on selected and related sets of crucial factors” (Segal and Spaeth 2002). In this paper, I will be discussing the three models and which model explains how justices behave the best: the legal model, the attitudinal model, and the rational model. The legal model justices vote on their preference but when given the opportunity they would vote to overturn the precedent because it does not fit their personal opinions. The attitudinal model justices are provided with the best prediction on a given case to determine how to vote. The rational model is the last model that feeds off the other models. The justices for this model vote on their preferences and not on sides. I will describe how each model links into each other.
One of the key components of the rule of law is that the law should apply to everyone equally and fairly, whether, monarch, government or citizen (Ellis 2013). As A V Dicey believed, no one should be above the law and everyone should be subject to the rule of law (Ellis 2013). Within the rule of law, there are five vital components to the operations. These include fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency and impartiality (Hinchy 2015). Fairness and rationality ensures the rule of law applies to everyone including citizens and the government. Predictability pertains that if a law is broken, the consequences will be known. Consistency, warrants consistency that the rule of law is being applied to everyone the same. Lastly, impartiality, which is an individual that decides on issues to do with the law (Hinchy 2015). The rule of law maintains consistency and equality within nations, yet there are countries where the rule of law is not common practice (Ellis 2013). Overall,
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
In contrary to its contemporary antagonist philosophical schools, who advocate the practices of humanness and the rightness and set ideal of the past, the Legalists, in their complete rejection of the traditional ethics, embraces the efficacy of political power and uphold a society of laws and punishments. As the old feudal states decayed and the smoke of endemic warfare suffused, the need for a more rational government that can afford greater centralized power so as to strengthen a state against its rival increased substantially among the Warring States. Such a rising urge necessitated the emergence of the Legalists and further predetermined the Legalists’ inherent nature – realistic, totalitarian and problem-solving – which, with the realization of its significance and duty in the stream of history, finds its hegemonic character as well.
Substantive law tells the crimes and punishments to those who have committed a crime. It is also the law that defines the rights and responsibilities of a person. Examples of Substantive law would
Lord Hope notably proposed that ‘the rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimately controlling factor on which our constitution is based’ . This was concurred by Lady Baroness Hale who stated that ‘the courts will treat with particular suspicion any attempt to subvert the rule of law’ although she acknowledged, ‘the constraints upon what Parliament can do are political and diplomatic rather than constitution.’
We must consider whether they are “authoritarian law-makers, or if their profession makes them mere declarers of the law”. In this essay, I will argue the ways that judges do make law, as well as discussing the contrary. The English legal system is ostensibly embedded on the foundation of a ‘high degree of certainty with adaptability’ based on a steady ‘mode’ of legal reasoning. This rests on four propositions. 1.
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
United Kingdom is a country with a distinctive set of legal system. It is fairly different from other countries having civil law based legal systems. The legal system in the United Kingdom consists of various sources of law, where other civil law based countries rely only on a written set of law. European influences on the English Legal System came much later in near decades. This essay will aim to examine the development of the English Legal System by reviewing applications of various sources of law in the English Legal System furthermore to discuss the recent European influences on the law of England.
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.
According to Reference.com (2007), law is defined as: "rules of conduct of any organized society, however simple or small, that are enforced by threat of punishment if they are violated. Modern law has a wide sweep and regulates many branches of conduct." Essentially law is the rules and regulations that aid in governing conduct, handling disputes, and dealing with criminal actions.
The Rule of Law means that the state should govern its citizens, in a way which works with the rules that have been agreed on. The Rule of Law is simply a fundamental principle of our constitution. Britain and other Western democracies are different in that Britain has an unwritten constitution, meaning that our constitution is not found in a certain document but that we actually have a constitution from the rules about who governs it, and about the powers they entail and how that power can be passed or even transferred. The Constitution includes; Acts of Parliament, Judicial decisions and Conventions.There are three main principles around the Rule of Law being the separation of powers, the supremacy of Parliament and the Rule of Law. The
Leon Petrażycki and Eugen Ehrlich had independent work but their theories corresponded with one another in at least one respect (33). Both theorists believe that the law is found in institutions that are outside authority.
Legal realism defines legal rights and duties as whatever the court says they are. Out of all the legal theories we have examined in class, I personally believe that this is the one that best exemplifies the purpose of law and would best suit and benefit society. The Dimensions of Law textbook defines legal realism as “the school of legal philosophy that examines law in a realistic rather than theoretical fashion; the belief that law is determined by what actually happens in court as judges interpret and apply law.”
In today’s society we have structure in terms of law and order; however this was not always the case in past societies, while some did have an organized legal system, others were run on dishonesty and carried out outrageous punishments. An example of a society with law and order was ancient Rome in which there was a strict legal code which applied to most citizens. This concept of law and order was lost by medieval times in which rulers were immoral, punishments were inhumane and there were often unfair rulings. This displays how societies have changed and developed overtime and how throughout history we see different ways of life emerge, die out and then re-emerge.