ith any great precision, largely because it is noticed more by its absence than its presence. It represents on the one hand an attitude of restraint with regard to governmental powers. Because it is so difficult to define, it is also easy to criticize if one seeks to expand governmental powers. On the other hand, this difficulty also prevents it from being reduced to a completely formal construct, and thus from being stamped out by overt action. (Walker, 1988, p. 3).
The definition of the rule of law could be framed in terms of values or institutions. Those who advocate the values approach argue that the rule of law can only have meaning if it expressly recognizes certain fundamental human rights. Recognition and protection of rights must dominate the legal system in question. Furthermore, the definition of the rule of law must be considered a dynamic concept under which a citizen can find fulfillment through the full development of his or her capacities. It must not be concerned solely with those instances where the government acted arbitrarily towards a citizen or where a citizen suffered coercion at the hands of other individuals or groups. Thus, the rule of law must create a framework in which a citizen can pursue personal plans with a reasonable expectation that he or she will not be arbitrarily prevented from doing so. (Walker, 1988, p. 11).
The problem with the values approach is its political flavor. It inseparably links the rule of law with the liberal democratic free-market society of the west. This obvious linkage can be used by absolutist governments to attack the concept of the rule of law as decadent. Such attacks occurred in Iran during the Islamic revolution during the late 1970s. The "decadence" of the rule of law was presented as a justification for executing political prisoners without trials, since trials were labelled a symptom of "western sickness." Some have argued that the rule of law can e...