Rules of Law

The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "The authority and influence of law
in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior;
(hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are
considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes. The phrase "the rule
of law" refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.

Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish
theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings.[3] John
Locke wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that
apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free from both governmental and private
restrictions upon liberty. "The rule of law" was further popularized in the 19th century by British
jurist A. V. Dicey. However, the principle, if not the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient
thinkers; for example, Aristotle wrote: "It is more proper that law should govern than any one of
the citizens".

The rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including people who are
lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and judges. In this sense, it stands in contrast to a
monarchy or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law.[citation needed] Lack of the rule
of law can be found in both democracies and monarchies, for example, because of neglect or
ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient
corrective mechanisms for restoring it.

Antiquity

In the West, the ancient Greeks initially regarded the best form of government as rule by the
best men.[9] Plato advocated a benevolent monarchy ruled by an idealized philosopher king,
who was above the law.[9] Plato nevertheless hoped that the best men would be good at
respecting established laws, explaining that "Where the law is subject to some other authority
and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the
master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise
and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state."[10] More than Plato
attempted to do, Aristotle flatly opposed letting the highest officials wield power beyond
guarding and serving the laws.[9] In other words, Aristotle advocated the rule of law:

It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if
it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be
 appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.[4]

The Roman statesman Cicero is often cited as saying, roughly: "We are all servants of the laws in
order to be free."[11] During the Roman Republic, controversial magistrates might be put on trial
when their terms of office expired. Under the Roman Empire, the sovereign was personally
immune (legibus solutus), but those with grievances could sue the treasury.[6]

Members of the school of legalism during the 3rd century BC argued for using law as a tool of
governance, but they promoted "rule by law" as opposed to "rule of law", meaning that they
placed the aristocrats and emperor above the law. In contrast, the Huang–Lao school of Daoism
rejected legal positivism in favor of a natural law that even the ruler would be subject to.

There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western
constitutional law. In the Old Testament, the book of Deuteronomy imposes certain restrictions
on the king, regarding such matters as the numbers of wives he might take and of horses he
might acquire (for his own use). According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation
was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...."[14] The
Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including
Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England.