There are several main approaches to defining the rule of law including formal and substantive, and functional conceptions of the rule of law. In this essay I am going to explore the formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law. The formulistic approach to the rule of law which is to explore the definitions of the rule of law we must look at the existence of certain criteria to test the rule of law and not see whether the law is ?good? or ?bad? (substantive examination of the rule of law goes beyond this). Common criteria to test the rule of law includes: a formally independent and just judiciary; laws that are accessible by the general public; the absence of laws that apply only to particular individuals or classes i.e. equality of laws; the absence of influence of a time before enactment of laws; and provisions for judicial review of government action.
There is no definitive list of formal criteria, and different formal definitions may use different standards. What formal definitions have in common is that the "rule of law" is measured by the orthodoxy of the legal system to these explicit standards.
The main advantage of a formal definition of the rule of law is that it is clear, and useful after the formal criteria of testing it are chosen. Choosing which standards to include may be controversial, but after the standards are made clear, it is usually not difficult to see the degree to which countries meet or failure to reach the standards. Formal definitions thus avoid more subjective judgments, for example about whether laws are "fair" or "just" and focuses on the implementation of the criteria set out.
Formal definitions has one major flaw. The formal view may place too much emphasis on the "law in...