This paper examines Ronald Dworkin's jurisprudential framework through several interconnected themes: the foundational principles of the rule of law, the distinction between arbitrary and legitimate governments, the role of external authority in motivating moral compliance, and the ethical tension between a law's fairness and its effectiveness. Drawing on Dworkin's account of judicial interpretation, the paper also explores how courts — particularly the Supreme Court — rely on principles of justice and policy when overturning precedent, and the complications this creates for lawmakers and democratic governance. The segregation era is offered as a concrete example of a law that was effective yet fundamentally unjust.
The rule of law entails the practical manifestation of our social and philosophical ideals: it is ideals in action. The rule of law allows public standards to be applied to personal behaviors, and it requires the proper exercise of power by a governing body. The government enforces the law, but no individual is above the law.
The principles of law include the following. First, the government must itself ascribe to the law; the governing body is subject to the law and must therefore operate within its parameters. Second, the government's objective is to create and maintain social order and peace through the application of the rule of law — yet it must act fairly when doing so. No individual should be punished if he or she is unaware of the rules. Third, the rule of law must be spelled out clearly for the public so that individuals are aware of their obligations. Finally, all persons charged with a violation of the law must have a chance to defend themselves.
The fair execution of the rule of law serves several vital social functions: it prevents corruption, restrains the natural forces of vengeance, protects individual liberty, and promotes the overall economic prosperity of society. As the Britannica overview of the rule of law notes, these principles have been central to political philosophy across centuries of legal thought.
Arbitrary governments enforce the rule of law arbitrarily — that is, without reason or order. An arbitrary government enables corruption because it operates as though it is above the law, and it does so without the fully expressed support of the people. In such a system, the rule of law does not apply equally to all persons.
A legitimate government, by contrast, has the full support of the people, and the rule of law applies equally to all. Laws are universally and evenly enforced, and no individual is permitted to escape or transcend justice. The legitimate government willingly subjects itself to the rule of law to the same degree that its individual citizens do. This distinction between arbitrary and legitimate political authority is foundational to democratic legal theory.
"Role of authority in motivating moral behavior"
The opposition between a law's fairness and its effectiveness presents an ethical conundrum for interpreters of the law. Questions about whether a law is effective point to its ability to restrain the public, maintain social order, and enforce obedience. A law can be considered effective if it is readily enforced. However, an effective law is not necessarily a fair one.
For example, when segregation laws were on the books, they were effective in creating a racially stratified society that some segments of society found desirable. Although those laws were effective, they were certainly not fair. The difference between a law's effectiveness and its fairness creates problems when lawmakers and other public servants must interpret cultural and social norms and make laws reflect morality as best as possible. In other words, when making a law that is both effective and fair, who decides?
"Courts creating law through interpretive decisions"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.