what is rule of law

Asked 27-Jul-2020
Viewed 823 times

2 Answers


0

what is rule of law

This topic considers several explanations for the international human rights movement‘s sudden heightened attention to rule of law.


 Human rights movement has progressively confront conceptual, normative and political challenges. Perhaps, as de Mello suggested, rule of law are going to be a “fruitful principle to guide us toward agreement and results,” and “a touchstone for us in spreading the culture of human rights.”

We still board a world where widespread human rights violations are the norm instead of the exception. Rules of law is define as directly integral to the implementation of rights.

Rule of law can also be indirectly related to better rights protection therein rule of law is associated with economic development, which is said to raised rights performance.

Rule of law is integral too and necessary for democracy and good governance. Attempts to democratize without a functional system in situ have resulted in social disorder.

Rule of law is claimed to facilitate geopolitical stability and global peace. According to some, it's going to help prevent wars from occurring within the first place. It also provides guidelines for a way war is administered , and is central to the establishment of a rights-respecting post-conflict regime.

Post 9-11 deals with over terrorism have also focused attention on rule of law.

One more thing that is very much important, rule of law provides a rhetorical basis for challenging the world‘s sole reigning superpower.

Taking each of these factors in turn, I critically analyse the relationship between rule of law and human rights. Because this relationship is complex and defies easy summary across such a broad range of issues. Nevertheless, a provisional summary that highlights some of the key findings and conclusions may be helpful. 
First, on the entire , rule of law is desirable. However, it is clearly no panacea for any of these problems.

No. Two, rule of law is more useful in addressing some concerns than others. Requesting to rule of law will do little to resolve the conceptual and normative difficulties at the core of the human rights agenda.

No.Third, the empirical evidence to support the assertion that rule of law results in more rights and wellbeing is restricted , and subject to doubts about causality. There is good reason to believe that wealth instead of rule of law is especially liable for better rights performance, although rule of law can also have some independent impact.

No.Fourth, although rule of law and liberal democracy generally go hand in hand, they have not. Rule of law is feasible in non-democratic states, and in democratic but non-liberal states. Rule of law may proceed, and is usually a precondition for, democratic consolidation.

No.Fifth, we should always not put an excessive amount of faith within the ability of rule of law to stop war, limit atrocities during war, or rein during a superpower bent going its own way.

Finally, rule of law is merely one component of a just society. In some cases, the values served by rule of law will got to subside to other values. Invoking rule of law in most cases signals the start of normative and political debate, not the top of it.


0

Rule of law means that law is paramount and applies equally to all people. The main principle of the rule of law is - equality of all people before the law. In India, it is adopted in the same sense in which it is adopted in English-American legislation.

The Indian Constitution declares that for every citizen there will be only one law that will be equally applicable. No one will be privileged for reasons of birth, caste etc. (Article 14). If a class is privileged in a state and other people are deprived of it, then there cannot be a rule of law. 

Therefore, in ancient states or in the feudal society of the Middle Ages where there was a difference between the rights of the ruling class and the common people, there was no equality of law. For example, in the legislation of the Kingdom of Rome, we find differences between the rights of the Patrician (upper class) and the Plebian (populace) and the Roman citizen and the Peregrinus (resident of the conquered country). Slavery was also supported by the method.

In India, the common law of the country applies equally to every person, be it king or poor, and everyone gets equal justice in the ordinary court. There are few exceptions to this rule in terms of political and international mutual dignity. As such, the President and the Governor cannot be punished by the ordinary court of the country (Article 361 (1)) The King, President or Ambassador of foreign countries is outside the jurisdiction of the Court (Article 51).
In the Indian Constitution, equality of protection of law is given not only to the citizens of the country, but also to foreigners equally, irrespective of caste, religion, varna, place of birth, etc. The right of men and women is also not differentiated (Article 15). All citizens have the right to equal opportunity in livelihood or government appointment (Article 16).

Untouchability has been completely banned (Article 17). Apart from military and educational titles, the state cannot grant other degrees to its citizens (Article 18). A citizen can be punished only once for an offense prescribed by law (Article 20). Death penalty or imprisonment can be given to any person only in a lawful manner (Article 21), only in exceptional circumstances in a crisis can the government arrest anyone without conducting the case (Article 19 (2)).

One can pursue a case against the government in a civil court over the abduction of its fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution. The Constitution directs that the High Court of the States and the Supreme Court of the country protect these fundamental rights. Justice has been enacted by impartial and fearless judges. It is the duty of the government to follow his orders. Fair and independent newspapers and conscious public opinion are the watchdogs of the people.