I'm currently revising the Rule of Law for my constitutional law exam. I feel like i'm going round and round and round in circles getting increasingly more confused!
Could anyone share their knowledge with me about this:
I have an essay structure about how the rule of law could be argued:
- Raz's view
- Conflicts with Hart's view... which is supported by Dworkin and Dicey.
- Further Dicey's view... principal of legality and how no one is above the law.
- Other elements of Dicey's view such as the law should be clear; prospective and the judiciary should be independent.
- Criticisms of Dicey's view
- Conclusion that in reality the rule of law is not set in stone and difficult to achieve.
What it is I am confused on is the difference between raz and dworkin/ Dicey.
I appreciate Raz is a 'literalist' and Dworkin is a 'moralist' - but could anyone explain their ideas of the rule of law and how Hart and Dicey concur with Dworkin??
Furthermore, would you say that my essay plan to a general qu. on the rule of law is adequate??
Thank you for any help.
Turn on thread page Beta
The Rule of Law watch
- Thread Starter
- 17-01-2010 22:24
- PS Helper
- 17-01-2010 23:37
Raz believed that the law should be general, open and clear (Dicey believed it should precise and predicatble). Raz thought the law should be stable and that the judiciary should be independent. He also believed the law should not be biased and that courts should be accessible. Dicey and the Delhi generally agree with Raz on all the latter points. The jist of both their perspectives is that there should be a right to challenge the state and there should be limits on the state's power.
I'd recommend reading aroung Dworkin yourself since he's a pretty important theorist. Your essay plan is generally fine but you really should practice actually writing the essays yourself as well.