The Rule of Law in the UK: Between Principle and Practice

Introduction
The rule of law is a cornerstone of the UK’s constitutional identity, invoked in everything from ministerial speeches to judicial reviews. But what it means in practice, and how faithfully it is applied, remains subject to continuous academic, legal and public debate.
In March 2025, the House of Lords Constitution Committee launched a formal inquiry into the state of the rule of law in the UK. The aim is to explore how the principle is understood. How does it function in today’s political and institutional climate?

This article is a starting point to understanding the rule of law, which is not a fixed doctrine. It is living tension between legal restraint, democratic governance and the protection of individual rights.

Definitions
The UK does not have a codified constitution. The rule of law operates as a moral and procedural tie that binds Parliament, the courts, and the executive together in a dynamic, albeit fragile, balance.
A.V. Dicey, writing in 1885, offered a formal and classical view of the rule of law, structured around three core ideas: the supremacy of law over arbitrary power; equality before the law; the constitution as a product of ordinary law and court decisions and not a supreme written code.

While Dicey’s work shaped early British constitutional thought, his framework has been criticised for being too narrow and overly trusting of institutional goodwill.
Contemporary theorists offer more layered approaches, for example:
Joseph Raz contends that the rule of law is primarily procedural. It requires clear, stable, publicly accessible laws, but does not prescribe moral content.
Ronald Dworkin, argues that the rule of law includes substantive justice: law should reflect fairness, integrity, and protection of rights.
Lord Bingham (in a landmark 2006 speech) proposed eight guiding principles, adding that laws must protect fundamental rights and be applied equally and accessibly.

The question posed by the Lords Committee (what is the rule of law, and is it under threat?) therefore, invites reflection on both its philosophical underpinnings and its real-world robustness and application.

Scope of the inquiry
The House of Lords Constitution Committee inquiry focuses on whether the rule of law is being upheld across all branches of the UK state. The following are questions that it is examining:
Is the rule of law sufficiently understood by public officials and the public?
What are its essential features?
Where is it most at risk?
Are Parliament, the judiciary and the executive adequately safeguarding it?
What role should civil society, education and the media play in strengthening it?
The inquiry is happening at a time when long-standing assumptions about British governance are being tested by political volatility, legal reform and growing public disillusionment.

Implications for democracy
Democracy requires that law exists and that it constrains power. In recent years, several high-profile developments have cast doubt on how consistently this principle is applied. First, let us consider the issue of executive overreach during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Coronavirus Act 2020 granted ministers sweeping powers to limit public freedoms with minimal parliamentary oversight. Emergency measures bypassed normal scrutiny, and some legal commentators warned that the executive was exercising legislative functions in all but name.

Second we come to the prorogation of Parliament in 2019. In a historic ruling, the UK Supreme Court found that the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament during a critical Brexit period was unlawful. The judgment affirmed Parliament’s role as a check on executive power and the judiciary’s duty to intervene when democratic processes are subverted.

Third, let us consider policing of protest specifically recent public order legislation which has expanded police powers to restrict protest. The government tried to redefine “serious disruption” as “more than minor” through secondary legislation. It was ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal. It was stated that the Home Secretary had exceeded their powers. Civil liberties advocates considered this a win for the rule of law and democratic expression.

Fourth, and finally, turning to the Rwanda asylum policy and the government’s efforts to declar Rwanda a “safe third country” for those seeking asylum, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary. This illustrates the exectuive’s resistance to judicial oversight. The legislative attempt to overrule a finding of legal fact has sparked concerns about separation of powers, international obligations, and the future integrity of human rights law in the UK.

These examples reveal a growing pattern of the executive stretching or resisting legal constraints in ways that test the resilience of UK constitutional norms.

A living system
The rule of law cannot be preserved through doctrine alone. It must be demonstrated, debated and defended. This is especially crucial in times of constitutional strain. As the inquiry unfolds, it offers a rare opportunity to reflect not only on abstract principles but also on lived experience, including the unequal ways law is applied depending on characteristics including race, gender, gender reassignment, class, or disability.
We should all support efforts to reclaim legal literacy and promote accessible, rights-based engagement with systems and structures of power. The rule of law, if treated not as a historical relic but as a living system, can remain a vital foundation for justice, democracy and accountability.

References

Bingham, T. (2007) ‘The Rule of Law. The 6th Sir David Williams Lecture’, Centre for Public Law, University of Cambridge.
Dicey, A.V. (1885) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, London: Macmillan.
Dworkin, R. (1986) Law’s Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
House of Lords Constitution Committee (2025) Rule of Law Inquiry Launched [online] UK Parliament.
Raz, J. (1979) The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Guardian (2024) ‘Judges Quash Braverman Protest Law Expansion’. [online]
UK Supreme Court (2019) R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41.