DI MICHAEL NEUMANN
It almost seems as if the rule of law is something customarily viewed from a considerable distance. The concept is often enough invoked, but very rarely examined. It is venerated as a Good Thing, but used almost exclusively to generate merely rhetorical condemnation of unpalatable practices.
It would be more useful if it were less venerated. For the rule of law to be abolished is rightly thought terrible, even catastrophic. But for the rule of law to be violated is not always a bad thing; it can even be obligatory—and this holds for all current versions of the notion. I will argue that modest concepts of the rule of law will serve us better than ambitious, expansive versions.
Following usage popularised by John Rawls, I contrast ‘fat’ to ‘lean’ or ‘thin’ versions of the rule of law. Since the fat versions more or less incorporate the lean ones, it is convenient to survey a lean version first.
Thin conceptions interpret the rule of law, more or less, as mere law and order.