rule of law

.

Law supremacy

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day7 hrs (2007-11-15 18:09:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap181.htm
18.1 Supremacy Of Law
All persons (individuals, institutions and government) subject to law
Supremacy of the law is a fundamental concept in the western democratic order. The rule of law requires both citizens and governments to be subject to known and standing laws. The supremacy of law also requires generality in the law. This principle is a further development of the principle of equality before the law. Laws should not be made in respect of particular persons. As Dicey postulated, the rule of law presupposes the absence of wide discretionary authority in the rulers, so that they cannot make their own laws but must govern according to the established laws. Those laws ought not to be too easily changeable. Stable laws are a prerequisite of the certainty and confidence which form an essential part of individual freedom and security. Therefore, laws ought to be rooted in moral principles, which cannot be achieved if they are framed in too detailed a manner.

The idea of the supremacy of law requires a definition of law (to which the above principles may go some way). This must include a distinction between law and executive administration and prerogative decree. A failure to maintain the formal differences between these things must lead to a conception of law as nothing more than authorisation for power, rather than the guarantee of liberty, equally to all.

The rule of law ensures that individuals have a secure area of autonomy and have settled expectations by having their rights and duties pre-established and enforced by law.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day7 hrs (2007-11-15 18:11:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Dear Gan

Read this well it is in the American law
Need No proof more

Thanks

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day7 hrs (2007-11-15 18:12:48 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

وهنا لا جدال فيها سيادة القانون
الأفراد ,الأشخاص والهيئات والحكومة جميعهم يخضون لسيادة القانون
المادة
18.1

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day8 hrs (2007-11-15 18:17:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

revise your disagreement

Thanks

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day8 hrs (2007-11-15 18:19:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

وهنا يليها المادة
18.2
18.2 The Concept Of Justice
The concept of justice has three facets - interpersonal adjudication, law based on fault and an emphasis on procedures.

Interpersonal adjudication
This aspect of the concept of justice is based upon the rights and duties of the individual person. The liberal concept of justice is an interpersonal one - resolution of conflicts between individuals. Individuals can suffer or perpetrate wrong. Individuals can be punished, protected and granted restitution. Justice is an interpersonal thing. It consists in upholding that which is right and due as between persons. Social justice which involves society and groups is a concept which is directly antagonistic to the liberal idea. It is a concept which is nebulous and non achievable. Its proponents increase state power to effect it, with counterproductive results.

Even between persons, absolute justice is frequently unattainable. The best result which is practically and logically possible is not necessarily the perfect result. For example, in motor accident cases where one person suffers brain damage due to the negligence of a drunken driver, it is practically impossible to grant full restitution to the injured person. He can be compensated for medical expenses. He can be awarded a sum sufficient to improve his situation. He cannot be restored to his pre-accident condition. His brain damage cannot be repaired. It can only be ameliorated. It is not easy to determine a just punishment for the drunken drivers.

In other cases, perfect justice is logically (rather than physically) impossible. Such cases arise in situations where there are legitimate interests on both sides but the interests are in conflict. Only one can prevail. Someone has to lose. Justice requires that the better interest should prevail but that does not mean that there is no merit in the inferior interest. The law of adverse possession provides an illustration where the conflict is between an owner who has abandoned his land and another, professing to be the owner, sells it to a person who takes possession of it and improves it. There is merit (and possibly demerit) on both sides. The best that can be done is to develop rules to help ascertain which side has the better right.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day8 hrs (2007-11-15 18:19:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

مفهوم العدالة

This is a set term in English (cliche), and probably the Arabic term was originally taken from English

I have seen many times english texts that mention the upper hand of the law or the law having the upper hand so this may be what you are looking for.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 days (2007-11-26 11:31:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

You may also consider Reign of Law