but a set of agreements that don’t have the power of law.
Rule of law is about having a culture of respect for law as a legitimate product of democratic institutions. If law is only real to you because it’s “real” in the sense of boots, batons and assault rifles, the ‘power’ you are interested in is not the power of law.
Enforcement is an inseparable part of the rule of law. If laws aren’t enforced at all, your “laws” aren’t anything more than moral judgments. If laws aren’t enforced equally, you don’t have a “rule” of law so much as a set of state-sanctioned persecutions.
There’s a lot more to the topic than just enforcement, but to claim enforcement is anything but a crucial part of the mix is nonsensical.
Rule number 1 of international law is that it is not a set of laws, but a set of agreements that don’t have the power of law.
Rule of law is about having a culture of respect for law as a legitimate product of democratic institutions. If law is only real to you because it’s “real” in the sense of boots, batons and assault rifles, the ‘power’ you are interested in is not the power of law.
Enforcement is an inseparable part of the rule of law. If laws aren’t enforced at all, your “laws” aren’t anything more than moral judgments. If laws aren’t enforced equally, you don’t have a “rule” of law so much as a set of state-sanctioned persecutions.
There’s a lot more to the topic than just enforcement, but to claim enforcement is anything but a crucial part of the mix is nonsensical.
That sounds a lot like the US constitution, amirite?
Please save me from this waking nightmare