A little more information please Schmedlap. Was the crux of the outcome that the concept of the rule of law has nothing to do with how just laws are, but only whether they apply equally to everyone - that is to say, no one being above the law?
You must be one of those people who skips to the end of the book to see how it ends. I was omitting those details purposely. Don't worry - this is not a "gotcha" trap that I am about to spring, as I don't think there is any right or wrong answer. I just wanted to get peoples' views on what "rule of law" means. We all hear the term used, but what do we think it means? I didn't want to provide anything that would steer the comments away from that narrow question.
Within the context of international development and state-building, I'd emphasize, particularly with respect to the former, ease of contract enforceability, and particularly with respect to the latter, access to courts and an impartial judiciary. I'd probably also throw Weber's monopoloy on the legitimate use of violence somewhere in the mix; I'm just not sure where.
>p<
Beyond my abbreviated, one clause definitions of the concept, the World Bank appears to have done a much more thorough examination of both the concept, and measuring it empirically throughout the world: ://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/.
I'll be interested to see where this one goes.
ADTS
Actually, on second thought, I don't know why I said one was possibly more important for international development and the other more important for state-building.
ADTS
Was'te (Greetings in Lakota) Schmedlap. Where men meet together a pipe is always smoked formally before any talk takes place, and in doing so, all are bound who partake of the pipe to tell the truth! I will say my interpretation of the rule of law demands that it respect me as an equal and that I am governed the same as any other individual regardless of my station in society. I said I would tell the truth, and the truth is: ey-hee (alas), the rule of law is not impartial and reflects the political and social realities of the prejudices of those who make the law, and are constantly changing it, whether they are American law makers and our courts, or the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Here is the definition that the guy I talked to gave: a written code of rules and regulations and a bureaucracy to implement them. He said this is irrelevant if the rules do not get followed and the bureaucracy is ineffective in enforcing them. I think that makes sense. But that is not the definition of rule of law that I was familiar with.
My understanding of "rule of law" has always been primacy of law. Is there a legal system? If so, do the people actually regard it as legitimate and obey it. If so, then there is rule (primacy) of law.
My understanding of "rule of law" has always been primacy of law. Is there a legal system? If so, do the people actually regard it as legitimate and obey it. If so, then there is rule (primacy) of law.
I think your definition is better than his, though maybe not perfect. To me, "rule of law" implies that the written rules are followed and the bureaucracy is reasonably competent in effecting that reality. I think this condition is mostly about the existence of a state apparatus that is capable of compelling obedience to a set of rules by the population. So this encompasses the monopoly of violence, the system of rules, regulations, laws, mores, etc., and the mechanisms for ensuring compliance: police, courts, and so on.
When you talk about a state having "the rule of law," or about bringing "the rule of law" to a society in the process of state-building, I'm thinking about this entire package.
The Weberian circle I've always tried to square is, "Is power legitimate because people obey, or do people obey because power is legitimate?"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by primacy of law. In what context? Compared to legislative or executive powers? Or is that too American-centric an example (probably)? Legal institutions vary dramatically by country, to get back to your prior, "Culture" post.
I'm pretty partial to what Gulliver wrote as follows: "'rule of law' implies that the written rules are followed and the bureaucracy is reasonably competent in effecting that reality."
ADTS
The Weberian circle I've always tried to square is, "Is power legitimate because people obey, or do people obey because power is legitimate?"
.
While I agree that this is an interesting question in and of itself, I'm not sure that it has much to do with the definition of "rule of law."
There's probably a point to be made about how in totalitarian, "might makes right" societies, the rule of law very often slides into the rule of the powerful, and how the concentration of power in the hands of individuals rather than institutions and the framework of laws has a corrosive effect on the concept of equal protection/treatment (something that I think is probably fundamental to any "rule of law," but particularly a "legitimate" one) and consequently, the subject population's impressions of the legitimacy of their government, etc... but I don't know what that point is.
Irrelevant to the thread, but your comment form doesn't seem to enjoy paragraph breaks, Schmed. Am I missing something? Do I need to be using html to separate my thoughts?
Gulliver (and everyone else):
I'd make the point that rule of law is context-specific. For the World Bank, it might mean the ease of doing business that the legal environment provides (eg, corruption).
For state builders, as the thread has already suggested, it might mean the extent to which certain institutions are subordinate to other institutions (does this extend to civil military relations?).
For COIN, perhaps one ought to adapt something more akin to the World Bank's definition: the extent (and, I think, one that General Observer has already touched upon): the extent to which an ordinary citizen can expect fair treatment at the hands of local judicial institutions from which he or she might expect fair recourse.
To make paragraph breaks work, hit "enter" after a paragraph, then insert a "
", then hit "enter" again, and then resume typing.
ADTS
Rule of law, primacy of law - if people order their lives in such a way to go about their business
in compliance with the law on their own accord, without the constant fear or concern of retribution from government agents, then there is rule of law. If people order their lives in such a way to go about their business in violation of the law, either because the law is inconvenient or because the law is not known, then there is no rule of law. Every society exists somewhere in between those two extremes. The closer toward the former, the greater the rule of law.
By "primacy" of law I was trying to clarify that "rule of law" does not mean "the rule is the law" but rather "the law rules supreme."
Gulliver - yes, my comment form requires you to use XHTML. Surround paragraphs with p tags. You can use bold (strong), italics (em), underline (u), and format paragraphs normally (p) or with blocks (blockquote). The anchor tab (a) is disabled due to spammers (those bastards).