Almost a year ago, this blog published The "Rule of Law" - Notes for students in whjch it was noted that there is no precise definition of the term Rule of Law. The post pointed to various authoritative sources of information about that the Rule of Law, as a concept, ought to contain in modern times.
In November 2025, the House of Lords Constitution Committee published - Rule of law: holding the line between anarchy and tyranny - Committees - UK Parliament. This is the Committee's 13th Report of Session 2024-26.
Jonathan Sumption, the former Justice of the Supreme Court, in his book "The Challenges of Democracy and the Rule of Law" notes that there are rival approaches to the rule of law which are referred to as the 'thin' and 'thick' definitions.
The 'thin' version requires merely that laws should be publicly accessible, should not be retrospective, and should apply generally, for example, to the government as well as the citizen. The 'thick' definition would require the law to have a substantive content conferring a minimum of rights on individuals.Sumption comments that - 'The leading modern exponent of the thin definition was Professor Joseph Raz who taught that the rule of law meant, first, that people should be ruled by laws rather than governmental discretion, and, second, that the law should be such that people are able to be guided by it. In Raz's view, the rule of law offered no substantive content. The rule of law was not necessarily the same thing as the rule of good law. It should not be confused with democracy, justice, equality or human rights. Raz took this view to its logical conclusion and once observed that a State that instituted slavery would be a wicked State but it would not infringe the rule of law.
The thick definition became increasingly influential after the Second World War as a result of attempts to codify fundamental human rights. The thick definition is probably the prevailing one today and is endorsed by most common-law judges who have pronounced on the subject - e.g. Lord Bingham in The Rule of Law 2010.
The House of Lords report considers that the thin and thick conceptions - (in my view a preferable word to definitions) - obscure widespread agreement about the core meaning of the rule of law:-
As it stand, para 27, seems to me to be closer to the 'thin' conception of the rule of law. Without the inclusion of basic human rights it seems to be a deficient concept unsuitable for the modern world.
Recommendations from the committee:
I will keep comment to the last two of those recommendations.
Parliament must take its constitutional responsibilities seriously .... Clearly that is necessary but, in turn, Minsters must also to do the same. This is particularly the case given the control that Ministers now have over Parliamentary business.
The law must be accessible and clear .... Again, this is plainly necessary and, to be frank, much of the law is far from meeting this requirement. One only needs to look at the state of legislation as new legislation amends older using 'cut and paste' methods.
Of particular concern is the on-going use of delegated legislation which frequently contains 'Henry VIII' powers allowing Ministers to amend Acts of Parliament by using secondary legislation which receives minimal Parliamentary scrutiny. Recently, this point has been particularly noted because of the possibility of 'dynamic alignment' with EU rules in certain areas such as the movement of food between the UK and the EU. Professor Mark Elliot discusses this in an article on his Public Law for Everyone website - “Dynamic alignment” with EU rules: Neither unconstitutional nor undemocratic – Public Law for Everyone. We await the King's Speech on 13 May to see whether the next parliamentary session will include a Bill to implement such alignment with EU rules.
*****
The "Rule of Law" - Notes for students
The Challenges of Democracy and The Rule of Law - Jonathan Sumption - Profile Books, 2025
House of Lords Constitution Committee - Rule of law: holding the line between anarchy and tyranny - Committees - UK Parliament
No comments:
Post a Comment