Abstract
The rule of law has become a key notion of national law. Even though - or possibly because - there are differences between the concepts of rule of law in different states and the concept remains frustratingly elusive even within a single state, the rule of law has become universally accepted as an attribute of a just, successful, modern state and as an essential requirement for legitimizing the exercise of public power. With more and more power wielded by international organizations, it is hardly surprising that the notion has also entered the realm of international law. What is the status and content of the rule of law under international law, both as a principle binding states and as a principle binding the United Nations and other international organizations? The paper alleges that in the realm of universal international law the principle of the rule of law suffers from three weaknesses: its source under public international law is dubious, its content poorly defined and there is no court of general jurisdiction that could fill the abstract notion with content. As a remedy, I propose a distinction between two notions of the rule of law on the international level: a binding principle of the rule of law, defined through a rights-based approach and containing rule of law-related obligations already binding under international law, and an aspirational notion of the rule of law, aspiring towards a fairer, more just and law-abiding society. The proposed solution is applied to the field of UN peacekeeping.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | The Rule of Law and Its Application to the United Nations |
| Editors | Clemens Feinäugle |
| Publisher | Nomos |
| Pages | 131-148 |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |
