Rule of Law - Science topic

Mohammadamir, thanks for commenting. If you read the article you will see an outside the box, current view on those issues, then please comment again.

Respectfully yours

Lucio

Stephen, what has happened in economics is what has happen in the political area post 2016 BREXIT and 2016 USEXIT THERE WAS A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE LIBERAL ECONOMC SCIENCE BASED LIBERAL DEMOCRY LANDSCAPE BUT BOTH POLITICAL SCIENTIST AND ECONOMISTS missed the boat and did not adjurt their ideas to prevent the problem from spreading and to conteract the once that gain power.... There was a paradigm shift in the liberal democracy landscape as traditional normal decomocray politicians behaved and still behave as it they are compiting against ANOTHER NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME....when they are not.... and there was a shift in the economic landscape from demand side/supply side economics to chained demand side/chained supply economics but they have behaved and continue to behaved as traditional economic thinking is competing with ANOTHER FORM OF TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC THINKING....when they are not. Think about model paradigm shift knowledge gaps that make A TIT FOR TAT have different meaning and consequences as if there was a tit for take between two normal democratic outcomes or a tit for tat between to traditional economies,,,,,

I am currently writing a paper that will help to see that TIT FOR TAT when normal liberal democracies compete with temporary authoritarianism in the economic domain may backfire on the welbeing of normal democracy populations and may help temporary authoritarianism to gain even more effective targeted chaos based power....

For traditional economists trumpconomics policies do not make sense, for non-traditional economists as they think outside the box,,,,,THEY MAKE SENSE in the inverse reality world....

Respectfully yours;

yes

Subham, thank you for taking the time to comment. Your comment shows you really got the implications of my writings right on. I suggest to take the time to read the 9 articles already out there and if possible read them in order from rethinking 101 to rethinking 109 as each articles builds on previous ones so as to cover systematically the competition landscape before BREXIT 2016 and after, and doing it from different angles.... Notice that the position of any system in the picture gives you necessary and sufficient conditions for each system to come to exist and persist so if they are present or absent YOU CAN PREDICT.... Notice that by expressing the structure of each system in terms of present-absence effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law system allows you to predict by following the merging rules I share who will have access of power and when, under an independent rule of law system, under a perceived captured legal system and under a fully captured legal system. Also if you look at the situation backwards, you can see what needs to happen for paradigm flipbacks and for making more difficult, if not impossible, specific paradigm shifts...

Thank you for taking the time to comment, if we keep thinking the way traditional democracy thinkers think normal liberal democracy will become a rarity as they simply up to this moment have missed the boat....Taking the competition normal liberal democracy vrs TEMPORARY AUTHORITARIANISM as a competition between democratic continuity vrs democratic erosion....where when normal democratic outcomes stay in power THEY LEAVE THE LAWS THE SAME INSTEAD OF STRENTHENING THEM as they think temporary authoritarianism is looking for a fair competition, when they should expect temporary authoritarianism when in power to take active steps to control the legal system and all independent systems while maximizing effective targeted chaos...An exism market is driven by an irresponsible perfect maximizer....so the extreme actions to be expected are rational actions from the point of view of the exism movement....

Feel free to pick up any point in my papers and you can give it your own spin!

Again, thank you for commenting.

Kirk, read the paper when you have time and then feel free to comment and bring A ACADEMIC COUNTER ARGUMENT...against the ideas in this paper, it is about paradigm dynamics ideas..contrasting internal and external paradigm completion, all exism movements like Brexit/brecism, Usexit/trumpism, Brazilexit, italianexit, argentinexit..fall withing the ideas in this paper as it is an academic article, NOT A POLITICAL ONE.

Scientist usually read if the are not familiar with something before they make conclusions...

Thank for taking the time to comment!

Damian, all my articles have a list of operation concepts if you read the article covering the concepts being used to help readers GO BEYOND TRADITIONAL DEMOCRACY THINKING.... in the case of rule of law:

11) Independent rule of law system, the factual based system that ensures that the laws of thecountry are respected no matter who is in power or may come to power.

12) Non-independent rule of law system, the system that overlooks facts if needed to place ormaintain or preserve a specific movement or ideology in power (PDF) Rethinking democracy 105: Stating the structure of authoritarianism and democracy-based systems in terms majority rule driven voting systems under biding present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law qualitative comparative boundary conditions. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386345334_Rethinking_democracy_105_Stating_the_structure_of_authoritarianism_and_democracy-based_systems_in_terms_majority_rule_driven_voting_systems_under_biding_present-absent_effective_targeted_chaos_and_ind [accessed Jan 11 2025].

In my coming paper on Rethinking Democracy, the solution to this question using QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE THINKING is:

(i)(ELD.NLD) = T.M(Ee)i = THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY

Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:

Robert, thank you for taking the time to write.

This is an academic question, not a political one: your description of the canadian problem in your view is the same as the description of the problem by holders of exism views like in the USA, Brazil, UK, Italy, Argentina,.,,,, My work explains how exism movements can come out of liberal democracies and how they can come to exist and persist or the condition needed for then to fade away.... From 2016 Brexit and 2016 USEXIT/Trumpism to the present, the expectations documented in my work seem to be consistent with the coming and goings of exism movements that come from majority rule liberal democratic thinking under independent rule of law rule.

Not to desviate, Robert, Do you have a view on the answer to this specific question: When can permanent authoritarianism take hold under majority rule liberal democracies?

As all of you may know, we can take the experience of Trumpism(November 2016-January 2021) in the USA to explore questions such as when a democratic contest can lead to partial and permanent authoritarianism. The failure of the USEXIT/Trumpism to persist by losing reelection means that we just witness temporary authoritarianism, but it could have been worse as one more step was needed to move towards permanent authoritarianism in the USA and the lost of the most relevant normal democratic system in the world. Which raises the question, When can permanent authoritarianism take hold under majority rule liberal democracies?. Any ideas about what the missing step was to transition from temporary to permanent authoritarianism in the USA in 2020. Feel free to share your ideas.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

كنت اتمنى الإجابة على هذا السؤال

Thank you very much for your help, @Bishal Deb.

Profound regards

In addition to previous comment, certain form of neoliberalism mainly in economic and social, as well as cultural matters, can be extreme. As , for example, the ideology and practise of Free Market institutes in Eastern Europe. But this neoliberal approach has other things to do if compare to trumpism. Anyway, the analysis of connection between trumpism and neoliberal/state/national aspects is very interesting for research. But it is another case than Yours, dear Lucio.

If your question is when should a rule (or practice) that seems to work (i.e. produce the desired result in terms of human behaviour) in country A be adopted in country B, read Nancy Cartwright’s and Jeremy Hardie’s short book on ‘Evidence-based Policy’. Even the first few pages will illuminate the issue.

Dear Valeria Tananska, thank you for your detailed answer.

I unfortunately have little power, influence or network--but I'll refer your friend's case to some people who are better connected than I am. Maybe one or another of them can help. [I'll keep my fingers crossed.] I am sorry to hear about such things, and I suspect such situations must be far more common around the world than most of us realize. [A friend of a friend of mine got chased out of Indonesia for researching the corruption there, e.g.] I wish you and your friend the best of luck on this.

In my view Judicial Independence is a tool that should comes before the Rule of Law. A precondition of it and not a mere component. Separation of Power in the Montesquieu tradition seems to be prior to the Rule of Law itself.

Dear friends, those interested in ideas about Trumpconomics may find some good food for thoughts in the following unpublished article and I am sharing it here:

The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically

Dear Ngozi, how did you resolve finally this issue related to the improvement of Ar(2). I'm facing the same issue. Thanks for your help.

There are many definitions of governance but all have to do with the processes of interaction—be they undertaken by, say, hierarchies, markets, or networks—through which control is effected over a social system: this usually has to do with who has power, who makes decisions, how other players make their voices heard, and how account is rendered. (And so, emphasis is usually ascribed to transparency, accountability, and participation.) It is the processes of interaction and what governs them that leads to the creation, reinforcement, reproduction, alteration, etc. of social norms and institutions, which may well be formal organizations. The insights at https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_governance_lexicon_what_is_the_difference_between_governance_and_institutions may be of interest.

Hi - I think those of us who have been publishing for several years have come across this phenomenon. I'm not sure I have been the victim of a biased peer review (at least to my knowledge), but the other elements have cropped up from time to time. I often find that reviewers tend to take the point of view of reviewing papers according to how they would have written the paper rather than assessing it on its own merits. This is certainly something I have tried to avoid when reviewing for journals. Many journals now adopt quite prescriptive rules for reviewing which remove some of the problems noted in your question - but the anonymous nature of the reviewing process leaves a lot to be desired. All best wishes, James.

Ok, the preceding conversation has confused me a bit, so maybe it's not necessary, but I add my answer anyway:

Undereporting bias means a bias introduced by the fact the the police recorded crime statistics do not represent the real number of crimes, as many go under reported. this can result in a measurement error, as the degree of which crime is underreported might be correlated with your macro variables ( poor regions reporting less crime for instance). What your supervisor suggests now is that you control for this by including another variable, "Rule of Law", in your regression. I guess the idea is that the higher "rule of law" is, the more crimes are reported, and so it can serve as a control for underreporting bias. I find this claim somewhat dubious, as I don't see how it deals wirth the possibility of macro variables affecting underrreporting which would therby create endogeneity and biased OLS estimates. Also have no idea how such a variable would be implemented, but you seem to have found something on that.

I hope that helped,

Tim

I think on the contrary all the SDG's are indirectly tools to fight against corruption. It does not need to be mentioned as a separate SDG because it is coined in all the other SDGs. For example, quality and free access to both Primary and Secondary School education in Africa is still a major issue for government's to provide its citizens not because they do not have resources, but solely because of embezzlement and selfish ambitions of most government officials. Budget allocated for education is minimal and mismanaged in most cases. If governments can structure strict honest supervisory committees with the focus of providing quality education, there will be no corruption. That is, if the efforts and finances are invested towards ensuring the accomplishment of the goal, all individuals who might or have misused government funds will be sanctioned and excluded.

I think the non-realization of some SDGs is just because of the lack of political will. Some governments have and are condoning certain corrupt supposed high officials to misuse state funds. If governments can act like South Korea wherein the President was impeached and imprisoned even though she was not directly involved in the theft, I think it will serve as a deterrence and warning for future presidents and the public. Contrarily, Mugabe left the seat without an impeachment, that is a clear example of disregard of the rule of law. If the rule of law is enforced to achieve specific international obligations like the SDGs which indirectly uplifts the status of the country, then corruption will be compelled to die a natural death if strong policies are enacted.

I agree with Dr. Hein Retter.

Hello,

Your answer seems to give good examples. Trust is earned, reciprocity is one way to earn trust, even in absolute monarchies in middle-age Europe.

In some societies, if there is as a rule (say) that if one lives in an apartment building with more than three stories, one cannot shower after 9 pm and before 5 pm, because of potential noise to neighbors, there is no explicit cost if one disobeys but hardly anyone does. That would be an example, or if everyone likely wants to disobey the traffic lights late at night, because of potential robbery and the streets are empty, but the law has cameras with heavy fines if one disobeys, a conflict of rights can ensue -- the traffic law versus individual right to life.

You have several multicollinearity test. Try using Farrar & Glauber or CNT. So you check different options. 

Dear Professor,

Undoubtedly, 'judicial conscience' word has often been using by the Judges. We should try to find its roots in word 'Common conscience". The Conscience is associated with the eternal feeling but we find sometime something which shocks our conscience. When it is associated with the common man it become 'Common Conscience" . When the matters is deeply related with the law and more particularly with the legal principles, which can affect the conscience of a person having knowledge or understanding of the principles of law, it become 'Judicial Conscience'.

So we may define it as "the conscience of a person of judicial mind'.

The word nowhere create anything beyond the  domain of law.

Sir, unfortunately it is not the subjectmatter of any specific law, but in my opinion may be the subject matter of "Law Lexicon"

It is a factor indeed while considering the application of judicial principles in practice.

Prof. Srinivasan, I am very much obliged to give me a new sight for viewing the law from a new angle. 

Unfortunately I am not aware of such indicators. But would be interested to know and compare those with the South Asian countries' indicators.

On the one hand, Court decisions can be seen as one key instrument of checks and balances across the clusters of state power. On the other,  they may be a resource to redress injustices  and inequities of economic origin but also those deriving from other determinants such as racial, gender and sexuality constructs. Lastly constitutions and constitutional courts in ideal conditions may function as instruments to redress power imbalances between individuals and the sate, but also between citizens and other powerful institutions, such as corporations.

For United States aid, you could view the latest edition of U.S. overseas loans and grants.

Dear Pier Giuseppe

Let me share with you just some general approaches.

1) I am not very fond to think in terms of "ontologies", just because it usually means immutable essences, and therefore also liable to absolute truths. Beyond that, I can understand the approach that seeks a deeper understanding of this problem.

2) the problem you pose is about the relationship between politics and law. Generally, it is assumed that politics and law are independent and excluding experiences. Under this assumption, of course, states of emergency mean a collapse of rule of law.

3) however, in my view, it should be seen from another perspective: in any case public power corresponds to the policy. The policy can be exerted in a wide range of possibilities: through brutal ways (war) or through more rational ways (under rule of law), including intermediate or mixed forms.

4) keeping this in mind, it allows us to remember that : (a) even under the rule of law, politics is present everywhere, it's only a matter of degree; this includes the case where a judge decides when it should make an exception to the general rule for reasons of inapplicability or reasons of equity (b) is always risked falling into less civilized ways of exercising power (c) even when politic power exerted by violent means (uncivilized), the expectations of legitimation of power -in today's world- compels rulers to respect -as much as possible- legal forms, or at least, to promise to do so. Therefore, I think that the states of exception are instances in which the holders of power whereas interpret that must resign certain legal forms for the benefit of desirable outcomes, including to satisfy public opinion, hoping to legitimize power. Naturally, the less intense the withdrawal of legal forms and the more credible its exceptionality , the greater chance of being accepted. In those terms, states of exception (emergency) can be interpreted even as been part of the experience of a (legal) civilized politics, perhaps to the least extent, or perhaps on the way to stop being so.

Otherwise, I agree with the theoretical references that mention our colleagues.

The big conundrum with the Nuremberg Doctrine is that it banned the use of data obtained in Nazi concentration camp experiments entirely.  It is well known that the majority of so called scientific research in the camps was of no scientific value whatsoever and was the product of fantasist race theory but some was of obvious use.

The US and Soviet space programmes relied heavily not only on Nazi rocket engineers but on some of the medical experiments carried out on unwilling prisoners. The rationale behind the Nuremberg Doctrine was that to use this data would in someway justify the appalling brutality that was used to obtain it.

Returning to torture and the involvement of medics there is no justification for torture at all and no exception to the international law that the US and the Allies imposed on the World in 1945.  Torture is not even efficient and many people give information under torture that is false simply to make the pain stop.  Many tortured actually do not know anything anyway.  

In the GDR sleep deprivation was the most common form of what is euphemistically described as EIT.  The victim was sat in a chair facing an interrogator and kept awake for many hours under constant interrogation.  The interrogators changed shifts but the interrogation continued until the victim gave the information the Stasi wanted.  Incidentally it did not need to be true, only what they wanted to hear which was usually the denouncing of others.

No one was able to resist for long and this technique can't be beaten by training.  The problem with it is that many victims were so disorientated and confused by the lack of sleep that their answers were useless in terms of information of real value.  Any psychiatrist or clinical psychologist could have told the torturers that.

The psychiatrists, psychologists and other medics involved in torture or EIT or whatever other euphemism is used for brutality are not only condoning it but facilitating it.  Those doctors are themselves torturers and there is no convenient excuse for it.  

The Nazi doctors at Auschwitz and other facilities in the 3rd Reich believed what they were doing was for the good of humanity too.  The KGB and the MfS believed that they were protecting socialism for the good of mankind.  Its always easy to find an excuse but impossible to justify one.

Yes. it is unstable and driven by racial requirements. The structure of the population is basically made up of Fijians, Indians ad others. The problems are mainly between the Indian and Fijians with the Fijian population owning the land and the Indian being mainly the business people and sugar growers.  Unless this can be addressed we will continue to see one coup after another. The solutions rest with the Council of Chiefs and the leaders of the Indian community. 

My understanding is that you want to create an interaction term (s). However, your question is actually two-folded: an interaction term and a collinearity issue. It appears that you want to introduce Rule of Law Index and Corruption Index, possibly both from World Bank’s World Governance Index (WGI). Theoretically, Rule of Law and Corruption Index are highly correlated because a country with a good rule of law is highly likely to have a low corruption.  You can check it by conducting a bivariate correlation analysis between those two variables.

An elevated correlation may also exist between GDP per capita with either rule of law or corruption index. A highly developed country in general has a high level of rule of law, while having a low level corruption.

Another concern may be collinearity between those variables. You can conduct preliminary OLS regression analysis and check variation inflation factors for those variables as well as the bivariate correlation among them. If you confirm a collinearity issue, you cannot introduce those variables in a same regression model. Instead, you can introduce them in separate models.  Alternatively, you can create a combined index out of those two variables: rule of law and corruption index, if it is theoretically supported.

If you are indeed using World Babk’s WGI, you need to be aware that one element of Rule of Law is government’s ability to enforce the law. It is possible that a citizen perceives a high level of rule of law in his or her country when the country experiences a low homicide rate.  In other words, there may be a causal direction problem between rule of law and homicide rate.

Another variable requires an attention is death penalty. Some countries have death penalty laws, but they have not executed for the last few years and abolished death penalty by practice. How did you classify death penalty countries and non-death penalty countries? For example, should the country, that has not executed death row inmates for the last three years, be considered non-death penalty country?  

Additionally, there are many existing studies that already introduced the variables you mentioned. For example, an abundance of cross-national studies tested the relationship income inequality and homicide rate. Thus, I strongly suggest that your research must be driven by theories. Please thoroughly read previous research on the subject and make an adjustment in your research design, including the independent variables.