The Rule of Law

I often wonder how did humanity develop a need for what is called Law? How did society develop to a point where we were able to discern that which was morally unsound and unjust and construct a set of rules which served as a catalyst for preserving a high quality social fabric? What is the purpose of Law? If "Law" is to be a deterrent for behavior that is considered unethical, then it is obviously not doing a very good job, because society is pusillanimously fighting to remain less demonic and unethical than the demons themselves, and it seems as though, it is a fight that they are sadly loosing. So If Law cannot and is not preventing moral decay what is it's purpose and why is it existing?

Here is where my studies took me to a concept called the "Rule of Law". Lord Bingham, a former Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice in England and Wales, highlighted what is considered 8 sub rules to help define the term "Rule of Law". The 8 sub rules are as follows:

1. The Law Must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable.
2. Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion.
3. The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences require differentiation
4. Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly for the purpose of for which the powers were conferred without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably.
5. The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental rights.
6. Means must be provided for resolving without prohibitive cost or undue delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve.
7. Adjudicative procedures provide by the state should be fair.
8. The rule of Law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as it is national.

What?!!!!!

What is Lord Bingham saying. Are these sub rules really helping me dissect this concept of the "Rule of Law"? My head hurts!!! Let's see; 

So whatever "the Law" is, it must be accessible, for a number of reasons. If one cannot access the law or these rules made law", how can one ascertain what actions carry penalties? This of course does not mean that everyone will know all the laws. If that were the case, there will be no need for lawyers, but thankfully, (at least for the purpose of me being a law student), not everyone knows all the laws. Not even Lawyers themselves, but they understand how it works and can better guide you, when you have been told by the authorities that you have broken a law. So feel free to check with your lawyers for more legal advice. For the purpose of keeping the article short I will not go into all the reasons why accessibility is important. Those who are under the penalty of the Law must understand the Law itself. It must be clear to the subjects of its' rule. In this instance I do not believe that we will ever achieve rule of law clear enough. Firstly because clear is relative to one's understanding and secondly, if law was sufficiently clear then there would be no need for judges to "interpret" the clear law. 

If law is to serve its true purpose, then it should be able to assist in the resolution of matters pertaining to liability and rights.  The Law cannot be for one set of individuals only. It is often felt by some that in a lot of developed countries, celebrities usually go unscathed when they break the law, and individual who do not fall within the peripherals of financial obesity, and influence, get the harsher treatments before the law. That should never be the case when we all stand before the rules made law.  

Some consider the rule of law to be "content free. This  means that the rule of law has to deal with the form that the law takes, and the process by which laws are constructed. That was a concept identified by a legal writer named Joseph Raz who identified 8 basic principles that encapsulates this approach. The other concept is the content rich concept of the rule of Law. This concept is very different and is associated with identifying that humanity has basic rights as it relates to each other and the state. These "rights" by virtue of their nature and the fact that they are perpetually extant and present wherever human beings are present, make up the rule of law. That is in summary the concept of the content rich rule of Law. So I hope you are no longer as clueless as I am with regards to what is the rule of law. It is a complex area of the law, especially because there are varying opinions as to what exactly is the nature of the rule of law. If there are questions as to the nature of something, defining it will always be a  rather complex matter.