The following is an edited address I delivered to the European Center for Austrian Economics Foundation at the Princely Wine Cellars in Vaduz, Liechtenstein, on 19 February, having been awarded first place (ex aequo) in the Foundation’s Sixteenth International Vernon Smith Prize by HSH Prince Philipp of Liechtenstein for my paper, ‘Rule of Law: The Universal Unwritten Constitution’.
Your Highnesses, Chair, and other esteemed guests,
Thank you, not only for deeming my essay worthy of the recognition of the European Center for Austrian Economics Foundation, but for making the time to celebrate this occasion with me and my fellow prize-winners.
To many scholars, another presentation about the Rule of Law might feel worn in this day and age. Dare I say, especially after the lockdowns of 2020 through 2022, I think many free-thinking people view the Rule of Law as a guise for authoritarianism to cloak itself in the language of justice at best.
But as liberals, libertarians, freedom-fighters, and independent individuals, we must take ownership of a jurisprudence of liberty. All our opponents have developed intricate philosophies of law. I fear we might be lagging behind.
It is in this spirit that I have dedicated much of my own work in South Africa to advocacy around the Rule of Law.
Where do we start?
Legal scholarship has always gone above and beyond to emphasise diversity in law rather than sameness. Without meaning to be entirely vapid in my remarks, it is worth pointing out that to speak of ‘law’ in Liechtenstein, Bangladesh, South Africa, or Argentina is to speak of exactly the same phenomenon: rules that are binding, and for which violence will be used to secure compliance.
Law has always existed, and people have always instinctively understood law.
But there is an elephant in the room, and this elephant will always be there: the state. The state, in whatever form, be it an ancient tribal chief, a global government, or a technocratic cyberpunk totalitarian regime, has a tense relationship with the applicability of law. For the longest period of human history, the state has seen itself as though it is the source of legitimacy of law, and if not, simply above the law.
It was the classical liberal rejection of absolutism that brought about what we today know as constitutionalism, which is the idea that even the state – and perhaps especially the state – must be bound and limited by law, just like everyone else is. If the state is truly subject to law, then it is the law that rules. Where the state rules, or even where the so-called ‘people’ rule, the law does not.
What is the Rule of Law?
What, then, is the Rule of Law? This is an old question that thinkers have struggled with. But most thinkers on the Rule of Law do, I believe, agree on its ultimate character.
The following accurately encapsulates the essence of the Rule of Law: it is the legal institution that regulates or attempts to eliminate state arbitrariness. If you unbundle ‘state arbitrariness’ in this context, one might say ‘arbitrariness in the making, content, and application of public (that is, state) law.’
How does this legal institution, the Rule of Law, do this? Well, it sets requirements, but it is by no means self-enforcing, as I think all good libertarians understand. These requirements, very briefly, are that:
- The law, or official, legally recognised conduct, must be knowable. In other words, the rule that people are expected to comply with must be published, and it must be publicised. And the rule, of course, cannot be retroactive.
- The law must also be accessible. A layperson must be able easily to find, to read, and to understand the rule for themselves.
- The law must be unambiguous. It must only have one reasonably ascribable meaning.
- The law must be certain, in that it cannot be constantly changing, and it must be explicit, in that the rule may not be assumed or unstated.