Talk:Rule of law

Things I expected to find

Things I thought I'd find here but were missing:

"A nation of laws, not men," indicating the actual meaning of the often half-quoted truth is along the lines of the meaning of the rule of law.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse," indicating that when the rule of law is present (especially, the law is fundamental, and well-understood) there's no reason that one may not know/understand the law (as opposed to the opaque and enigmatic law of today.)

Your views? 216.241.44.104 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC) _________________________ Came here looking for contribution of Jews/Israel/Hebrews to concept of rule of law. Found nothing. Yet surely this has been a major contribution, if not THE major contribution to the concept of governing human society through law: (1) the idea of the 10 Commandments, (2)the painstaking study and written preservation of law through the centuries and (3)the education of generations of young people in Hebrew law as integral part of growing up.Starfoot (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC) ___________________________

== Definition.

== That definition is ridiculous. It's clear as mud. It should be replaced with a definition that's clear, precise, and not so brimming over with elitist arrogance.

173.2.154.46 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. You should add it. But similarly there was precedent for it in the Indus Valley Civilization (year 4,000 B.C.), Babylon (the Code of Hammurabi), and the Upanishads, of India, dating back to 800 B.C. Caelulum (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that the RULE OF LAW came from early Greece because my brother made it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.47.148 (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hayek

I am mystified by the lengthy quotation from Hayek at the end, since he represents a doctrinaire view that equates rule of law with libertarian theory.–––– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.108.132.166 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomocracy and Rule of Law

Are Nomocracy and Rule of Law talking about the same thing? What are some of the differences? 94rain (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)94rain

Somebody once invented the word "nomocracy", that's all. It hasn't caught on. I've removed the ref. Wikiain (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Out of date graph

2005 map of Worldwide Governance Indicators, which attempts ...

is outdated. Let us update or remove.

Totally agree. Here is the most up to date one I can find, 2018. http://governance.neda.gov.ph/?p=879 --138.38.99.147 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The United States doesn't have Rule of Law at all. The courts, internal affairs, DAs offices, and Attorney Generals, all allow police to do whatever they want, including rape torture and preplanned murder, and all push for the entire government class to be above the law. There are tens of examples of this weekly. Caelulum (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

First line

The OED definition as the first line is a rather weak way to open the article in my opinion. Maybe it could be changed to a circumscription of the principle in abstract terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.62.250 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

International Rule of Law

Is there no article International Rule of Law? As Stoltenberg just advocated to abolish it. --Alien4 (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

References close to subject matter

In the Organizations section there are a few organizations whose sections are sourced entirely from their websites. Some orgs have blue links but others do not, and their paras contain nothing but references to their own websites. Itanalot (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

John Adams

Completely agree that John Adams was one of those who brought the concept of rule of law to the real life, but I would prefer as the quotation the Article XXX of the Constitution of Massachusetts, "so that we are ruled by not by men" as the best example of what is the purpose of law.

Ceplm (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Status of Rule of Law in United States in wake of Trump v United States (2024)

Many legal and constitutional scholars, as well as current president Joe Biden have stated that this decision weakens rule of law in the United States. No discussion of rule of law (defined in this article as implying that even the head of government may be prosecuted if he or she commits a serious crime) is complete without a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024) , which violates this principle by creating practical impunity - eliminating the practical risk of prosecution of the president for almost any crime he or she may commit while in office. 174.21.135.244 (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have a wp:Reliable Source for "Many legal and constitutional scholars . . . have stated that this decision weakens rule of law in the United States" then you should add this point. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Some reliable sources on this point are verbose to the point of obscuring a painfully obvious point. With rule of law, nobody is above that law, and anyone may be prosecuted. Trump v United States effectively prevents prosecution of presidents, creating a system that no longer observes such rule of law when it comes the most powerful person and his associates.

In terms of referencing legal opinion in a readable way, this is a good start: https://news.berkeley.edu/2024/07/02/high-court-ruling-on-presidential-immunity-threatens-the-rule-of-law-scholars-warn/

The dissent from Justice Sotomayor should be referenced as it makes most of the relevant details. The original opinion is there as well, though I'd advise skipping past the utterances of its authors who have no business holding public office in any free country: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf 174.21.135.244 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Go for it! - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm just seeing this now, but it is insufficient to lead the section about the United States with "...the existence of rule of law in the United States is disputed" based on the Sotomayor dissent. The recent debates can go further into the section, but the sourcing needs to be much better. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The president is above the law. Multiple supreme court justices are quite clear about that, as provided in the sourcing. You cannot have a rule of law when the president is above it, as this article itself states in its first paragraphs. If anything, the 'disputed' language is overly generous to the current system in law at this moment. By completely removing any reference to the problem and eliminating the dissenting supreme court language as well as the views of most Americans, this scrubbing does a disservice to readers. ThomasPaine2024 (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

law

Addressing barrier to rule of law implementation in Pakistan 103.167.158.249 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Please provide more information regarding the purpose of your post. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"citizen"

I was curious why the lead of the article referred explicitly to 'citizens' when the entire point of the rule of law, historically, was to hold rulers to account - who themselves were not citizens (because they were monarchs - they were not 'subjects' of themselves). Citizenship is also a newer concept than the rule of law.

I couldn't find a reason, so edited the lead to match the sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica & Oxford English Dictionary) and also found the edit where it was changed to state that it's only about citizens and institutions.

My edit was reverted, so I'm wondering if we can have some consensus, as the sources don't specifically exclude noncitizens from the rule of law, and more often include noncitizens as being subject to the rule of law?

@Lonehexagon: @Coolcaesar: Is there a particular source that stood out as mentioning that the 'political ideal of' the rule of law only applies to citizens of a location, and not other people too?

Thanks. Komonzia (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the revert seems to be in error.

From what I can tell, the changes by @Komonzia reflect the idea that the principle of the rule of law is intended to include all "people" as opposed to just citizens. This aligns with the authoritative sources, as they mentioned, and also more accurately reflects the principle of the rule of law. The idea of the rule of law is specifically that it applies to all individuals, not just "citizens".

@Coolcaesar The claim of "failed verification" is vague. I checked the source for that sentence on National Geographic and it states, "The Rule of Law is a principle established in ancient Greece that holds all people and organizations accountable to the same set of laws." Similarly, I checked the Encyclopedia Britannica entry which uses the word citizen and it seems to be shorthand to emphasize that no one, whether citizens or rulers, is above the law. It doesn't exclude non-citizens. The article also clearly states, "In general, the rule of law implies that the creation of laws, their enforcement, and the relationships among legal rules are themselves legally regulated, so that no one—including the most highly placed official—is above the law. " This supports @Komonzia 's edit.

I believe the revert should be reconsidered, as @Komonzia 's edit more accurately reflects the meaning of "Rule of Law", and is in line for Wikipedia's standard that wording should accurately reflect the common understanding, have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and Verifiability with Reliable Sources.

@Coolcaesar Could you clarify your reasoning for the revert? Lonehexagon (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As User:Komonzia acknowledged above, User:Lonehexagon's edit on 29 January 2022 changed the article to to define this term in terms of citizens rather than people. I take no position either way because I have not thoroughly researched this topic within the last two decades. (I did read up on it in college when I took a course on political science, but that was a long time ago.)

I reverted User:Komonzia's edit because it revised the article in a way that was internally inconsistent, where the lead simply did not match the rest of the article. If User:Komonzia is proposing a revert back to the version prior to 29 January 2022, I am fine with that as well. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, which part of the article disagrees with this? I had intended to make the lead more consistent, not less, with the rest of the article - which was already pretty consistent with the sources (which variously do, and do not, mention the word 'citizen'). Namely, the rest of the article:

• gives a history of the concept and concepts before it, which are older than the concept of citizenship as commonly understood today
• summarises that the primary applications of the rule of law historically was to have laws apply to rulers, not just citizens
• does not exclude noncitizens from being covered by the ideal of the rule of law.

Komonzia (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

An awful sentence

I refer to "Various and countless way to define rule of law are known in the United States and might depend on one organization's goal including in territories with security risk:" I don't have access to the cited source, so I can't figure out what "including in territories with security risk" was intended to mean. I've made style edits to the language preceding that phrase. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus:: I added a link to the source, 'territories with security risk' seems to mean, in the main, something along the lines of 'places where you'd need a Judge-advocate deployed' - places where the US military have in some way supplanted the usual state apparatus that enforce laws (or enforce other things as it were). Please refer to the source and see if you can come up with sensible wording. I believe the intention was to suggest that rule of law, some kind of law at least, still counts in these volatile areas. Komonzia (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Komonzia:: Thanks for the link, but I do not have enough interest in this to pursue it, although if you'll refer me to a page in the source where the matter is discussed, I'd be willing to write a few words to replace "territories with security risks." I had come upon the article by chance and, skimming it, I saw the troublesome sentence, and I intended merely to alert another editor of the problem. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. But if anyone else wants to check, the referenced content is in Chapter 2 of the handbook. The handbook itself has multiple editions (annual editions). In the 2010 version of the handbook, it starts on page 23 of the PDF file, which is marked as page 10 of the book. It's a little surprising that the issue was in the article since it was added in 2021 ([1]), so thanks for spotting/calling out and fixing it. Komonzia (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Komonzia:: Thank you. Your edit is well-written. It made my noting the problem worthwhile.

Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)