Loading...

duminică, 7 octombrie 2012

Rule of law vs.Rule by law


O chestie foarte interesanta pe care am citit-o in Wikipedia, la capitolul discutii:

Talk:Rule of law

Se arata, printre altele, ca:

"In the section on Chinese interpretation of the rule of law the page states that the communist regiem takes the stance they the gov rules "by law" instead of "of law". This I feel is an important distinction and needs to be claified. Im having trouble making a distinction between any government making laws of any kind that restrict the free movement of peoples and a system where there is a lack of "rule of law". A monarchy can make a new law that taxes water wells. The king might be taxed since he has a water well. A totalitarian gov may pass a law removing all Jews to labor camps. Would not the Arian germans be also subject to the "rule of law"

I guess that I just dont understand the benefits of 'the rule of law", beyond a 18th century european monarchy.

Very good point. I guess the current work does miss something, which to people in common law countries might be common but not to people in "rule by law" countries. From what I learnt in university, "rule of law" does include the concept of the purpose of law which is distincted from the concept the law is a tool to govern the country and to manage people. By saying that, I have asked couple of lawyers from China what is the purpose of the law. They all answered me the law is the tool to govern the country and to manage society orderly, and everyone include the government supposed to be equal in front of law. So, is that a "rule of law"? They are talking about no one is immune to law too. What is the distinction then? Dayten (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)" (subl. mea)

Bineinteles, trebuie citit si:

Rule of law

Voi cita numai un pasaj, si anume despre cum e definit conceptul de Rule of law la Natiunile Unite:

"The Secretary-General of the United Nations defines the rule of law as:[42]

a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency."

De citit si...:

Rechtsstaat

Unrechtsstaat

Desigur, recomand citirea integrala si in original a tuturor articolelor. Interesant.

Niciun comentariu:

Trimiteți un comentariu