Hubbry Logo
LegalityLegalityMain
Open search
Legality
Community hub
Legality
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Legality
Legality
Legality
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Legality is the state of being consistent with the law, the construct of legal power, or lawfulness in a given jurisdiction.[1]

Definition

[edit]

Feminist jurisprudence

[edit]

Feminist theories of law define legality a distinct but related concept to the law, consisting of socially-constructed meanings and practices that depend on social forces, such as race, gender, and class.[2] Ewick and Sibley define "legality" as "those meanings, sources of authority, and cultural practices that are commonly recognized as legal, although not necessarily approved nor acknowledged by law."[3][4]

[edit]

In contract law, legality of purpose is required of every enforceable contract. One can not validate or enforce a contract to do activity with unlawful purpose.[5]

Principle of legality

[edit]
Main article: Principle of legality in criminal law

The principle that no one be convicted of a crime without a written legal text which clearly describes the crime is widely accepted and codified in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law. It is known in Latin as nulla poena sine lege.

Nulla poena sine lege is a principle of international human rights law and is incorporated into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Exceptionally under international law, criminal offences may include violations of "the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations", such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, even if such offences are not codified or affirmed in judicial precedent. Following the Nuremberg trials, scholars of jurisprudence have debated whether such exceptions are valid for apparently applying retrospective criminal sanctions in the absence of written law. Natural-law theorists argue that crimes such as genocide are, and have always been, illegal under natural law.

By jurisdiction

[edit]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In the United Kingdom under the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, the legislature can (in theory) pass such retrospective laws as it sees fit, though article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has legal force in Britain, forbids conviction for a crime which was not illegal at the time it was committed.

United States

[edit]

In the United States, laws may not violate the stated provisions of the United States Constitution, which includes a prohibition on retrospective laws.

Bibliography

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Legality

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Legality denotes the quality or state of being in accordance with the , signifying lawfulness or conformity to established legal norms governing actions, transactions, documents, or conditions. In , this concept distinguishes —rules enacted by legitimate authorities—from or ethical evaluations, allowing for the possibility that a legally valid rule may lack moral justification. Central to legal systems worldwide, legality underpins the principle of legality, particularly in , which mandates that offenses and penalties be clearly defined in pre-existing statutes to prevent arbitrary punishment, as encapsulated in the maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. This principle extends to , presuming that does not infringe absent explicit wording, thereby safeguarding individual liberties against overreach. While legality ensures predictability and rule-bound governance, debates persist over its separation from legitimacy—public acceptance or perceived justice—with critics arguing that over-reliance on formal legality can enable unjust outcomes under flawed regimes.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Etymology

Legality refers to the quality or state of conformity with the , encompassing both the general lawfulness of actions and, in jurisprudential contexts, the foundational principle that prohibits punishment or restriction of liberty without prior legislative authorization. In and public , the principle of legality—often expressed through the maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege ("no crime, no punishment without law")—mandates that offenses and penalties must be defined explicitly by enacted law before any prosecution or sanction can occur, thereby preventing retroactive or arbitrary application of state power. This doctrine serves as a bulwark against discretionary judicial or executive overreach, requiring laws to possess sufficient clarity and determinacy to enable individuals to foresee the legal consequences of their conduct. The term "legality" derives from late Middle English, entering usage around 1475 as a borrowing from medieval Latin legalitas, denoting "that which pertains to the law." It stems ultimately from Latin legalis ("pertaining to the law" or "lawful"), formed from lex (stem leg-), meaning "law," "statute," or "principle of right," with roots traceable to Proto-Indo-European legʰ-, connoting "to collect" or "to speak," reflecting law's origins in communal gathering and declaration of norms. This etymological lineage underscores legality's core association with formalized, binding rules rather than mere custom or moral intuition.

Philosophical Underpinnings

laid early philosophical groundwork for legality by conceiving as an expression of communal reason, superior to discretionary human rule due to its and detachment from passion. In his , he contended that "it is better for a to be ruled by than by a single individual," as laws aggregate collective deliberation and mitigate the flaws of personal governance, such as or caprice. This view positions legality as a mechanism for achieving through ordered norms that promote the , distinguishing —universal and inherent—from conventional legal , which adapts to particular societies but strives for proportionality and fairness. Cicero advanced this foundation with his doctrine of , defining true law as "right reason in agreement with nature," eternal, unchanging, and binding on all humanity irrespective of local customs or decrees. In , he argued that positive laws gain legitimacy only by conforming to this rational, universal order, which governs human conduct toward virtue and societal harmony; deviations, such as tyrannical edicts, forfeit . Cicero's framework thus underpins legality as derivative from an objective moral rationality, providing a criterion for evaluating enacted rules and emphasizing and equity as prerequisites for valid . Medieval synthesis by Thomas Aquinas integrated Aristotelian logic with theological principles, positing that human legality derives validity from participation in natural law, which mirrors divine eternal law accessible via reason. In Summa Theologica (1265–1274), Aquinas maintained that "an unjust law is no law at all" (lex iniusta non est lex), as it fails to direct toward the common good; legitimate laws must be rational, aimed at human flourishing, and promulgated publicly to bind subjects. This perspective reinforces legality's philosophical reliance on moral coherence and purpose, countering pure voluntarism by requiring alignment with higher rational norms for coercive force. These classical and scholastic ideas collectively establish legality's underpinnings in reason's supremacy over , ensuring social coordination through predictable, equitable rules that transcend mere power while accommodating . Empirical of polities, from ancient to medieval , corroborates this, as deviations toward unchecked discretion correlate with disorder, though positivist critiques later prioritized formal validity over substantive moral ties.

Historical Development

Ancient Origins

The earliest documented efforts to codify laws, laying groundwork for principles of clarity and public knowledge in legality, originated in ancient during the third millennium BCE. The , attributed to the Sumerian king of the of and dating to approximately 2100–2050 BCE, represents the oldest surviving legal code, inscribed on clay tablets. It addressed offenses such as , , and property disputes, prescribing fixed penalties like monetary fines or restitution rather than arbitrary royal fiat, thereby introducing a rudimentary framework for predictable legal consequences. Subsequent Mesopotamian codes built on this foundation, with the Code of Hammurabi—promulgated by the Babylonian king Hammurabi around 1754 BCE—standing as the most comprehensive early example, comprising 282 laws etched on a seven-foot diorite stele erected in Babylon for public display. This code regulated commerce, family relations, labor, and criminal acts, enforcing proportionality through the principle of lex talionis (an eye for an eye), where punishments mirrored the injury inflicted, adjusted for social class. By making laws visible and declarative, it aimed to deter wrongdoing and promote justice under the king's divine authority, marking an advance toward accessibility and non-arbitrary application, though enforcement remained tied to royal or priestly interpretation. In ancient Greece, codification further evolved to emphasize written statutes over oral customs or elite discretion, particularly in Athens during the Archaic period. Draco's laws, enacted in 621 BCE, constituted the first written legal code in Athens, covering homicide and other crimes with severe penalties to replace blood feuds and aristocratic vendettas, thus promoting uniformity and foreknowledge of prohibitions. Solon's reforms in 594 BCE moderated these by introducing economic and procedural elements, such as debt relief and appeal rights, underscoring emerging ideals of equitable, publicly accessible rules that constrained even magistrates' powers. These developments reflected a causal shift from personal to institutionalized justice, influencing later conceptions of law's binding force on rulers and subjects alike. Roman contributions in the mid-Republic era reinforced codification's role in legality through the of 451–450 BCE, commissioned by to document patrician customs into bronze tablets displayed in the Forum. This standardized civil, procedural, and criminal norms—addressing debts, , and with specific remedies—reducing judicial arbitrariness and establishing for 's supremacy over whim, as later articulated in the Lex Villia (180 BCE) limiting prosecutions. While ancient systems lacked modern prospectivity, these codes collectively fostered causal realism in governance by tying legitimacy to explicit, disseminated rules rather than unchecked authority.

Enlightenment and Modern Codification

The Enlightenment era marked a pivotal shift toward rationalizing legal systems, with philosophers articulating principles that curtailed arbitrary power and emphasized the rule of written, prospective laws. Cesare Beccaria's Dei Delitti e delle Pene (1764) explicitly championed the doctrine of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, arguing that crimes must be precisely defined and punishable only by pre-existing statutes to ensure predictability and prevent judicial whim. Beccaria contended that vague or retroactive laws undermine deterrence, as potential offenders cannot foresee consequences, and he criticized practices like and secret accusations for eroding . Similarly, Montesquieu's De l'esprit des lois (1748) advocated separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers to safeguard , positing that concentrated authority invites capricious enforcement, whereas divided powers compel adherence to clear, general laws applied uniformly. These ideas rejected absolutist traditions, prioritizing empirical utility and individual rights over monarchical prerogative. Building on Enlightenment foundations, modern codification efforts systematized legality into comprehensive statutes, replacing fragmented customs with accessible, hierarchical codes. The French Civil Code of 1804, under Napoleon Bonaparte, exemplified this by compiling laws into a single, rational document that abolished feudal privileges and ensured equality before written norms, though it focused more on civil matters. This codification extended to penal law, influencing the 1810 French Penal Code, which embedded nullum crimen sine lege by requiring offenses and penalties to be statutorily predefined, thereby institutionalizing prospectivity and specificity. Across , similar reforms proliferated: Prussia's Allgemeines Landrecht (1794) and Austria's (1803) incorporated clear penal definitions, while Benthamite in Britain pushed for legislative precision over common-law discretion. These codes facilitated bureaucratic administration and reduced interpretive latitude, aligning with causal mechanisms where explicit rules minimize and enhance compliance through foreseeability. By the mid-19th century, the principle permeated constitutional frameworks, as in Article 8 of the French Declaration of the and of the Citizen (, reaffirmed post-Revolution), which prohibited ex post facto penalties, and later national penal codes that mandated legislative origin for criminal liability. from this period shows declining arbitrary executions and amnesties, attributable to codified constraints on , though implementation varied amid political upheavals. This codification not only democratized access to law—via printed compilations—but also entrenched legality as a bulwark against tyranny, influencing global legal transplants in and beyond.

Core Elements of the Principle

Prospectivity and Non-Retroactivity

The principle of prospectivity mandates that penal laws govern only future conduct, allowing individuals to conform their to known legal standards and foresee potential consequences. This ensures legal predictability and prevents the state from imposing unforeseen liabilities, forming a cornerstone of the by safeguarding reliance on established norms. Non-retroactivity complements prospectivity by barring the application of laws to acts committed before their enactment, particularly prohibiting the retroactive of prior lawful or the imposition of harsher penalties than those applicable at the time of the offense. Together, these doctrines embody the Latin maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege—"no crime, no punishment without "—which requires that criminal liability and sanctions be grounded in pre-existing, accessible . This dual principle serves to constrain governmental power, averting arbitrary exercises of that could undermine personal autonomy and in legal institutions. In practice, violations occur when retroactively alters the criminal status of past acts, such as deeming non-criminal conduct felonious or escalating penalties post-offense, which erodes the deterrent function of by disrupting expectations of stability. from legal systems adhering to these rules shows reduced instances of prosecutorial overreach, as seen in jurisdictions where courts invalidate retroactive measures to preserve fairness. Exceptions are narrowly construed, typically limited to acts universally recognized as criminal under at the time, as in post-World War II tribunals where retroactivity was justified by overriding moral imperatives but not extended to novel offenses. Domestically, the United States Constitution exemplifies enforcement through its ex post facto clauses in Article I, Section 9 (for ) and Section 10 (for states), which prohibit federal and state laws that retroactively criminalize innocence, aggravate punishments, or eliminate defenses available at the time of the act. These provisions, ratified in 1788, have been interpreted by the to apply solely to penal statutes, not civil remedies or procedural changes, emphasizing substantive protections against disadvantageous retroactivity. Internationally, Article 15 of the (1966), binding on over 170 states, explicitly states: "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or , at the time when it was committed," and bars heavier penalties than those in force at the offense's commission. Similarly, Article 7 of the (1950) codifies non-retroactivity, with the ruling that it extends beyond mere prohibition of retrospective criminalization to require laws to be sufficiently foreseeable and accessible prior to the act. In the of the (1998), Article 24 reinforces these tenets by declaring non-retroactivity ratione personae, temporis, and loci, ensuring the court's jurisdiction over , , and war crimes applies only prospectively from July 1, 2002. While primarily absolute in criminal contexts, permits retroactive application if it benefits the accused, such as through ameliorative reforms reducing sentences, though courts scrutinize such measures to prevent disguised punitive escalations. Violations persist in authoritarian regimes, where retroactive laws target political opponents, underscoring 's role in resisting such abuses, as documented in reports from bodies like the UN Human Rights . Overall, prospectivity and non-retroactivity uphold causal accountability, linking punishment to deliberate choices under clear, antecedent rules rather than post hoc fiat.

Clarity, Specificity, and Accessibility

The principle of legality requires that laws defining offenses and penalties exhibit clarity to ensure individuals can comprehend their prohibitions without undue ambiguity, thereby preventing arbitrary or enforcement. This demand for clarity stems from the need for legal norms to be intelligible to the average citizen, as vague phrasing risks eroding predictability and enabling selective application by authorities. In articulating the , encompasses clarity as a safeguard against discretionary overreach, where laws must articulate rules in terms that avoid interpretive latitude that could undermine individual autonomy. Specificity complements clarity by mandating that legal prohibitions delineate precise conduct, excluding overly broad or indeterminate language that fails to provide fair notice of proscribed acts. This element addresses , which violates by trapping the unwary or inviting discriminatory enforcement, as statutes lacking definiteness compel citizens to guess at their scope. Courts invalidate such laws under doctrines like void for vagueness, which enforce specificity to uphold the core tenet that criminal liability attaches only to acts clearly forbidden by prior law. Accessibility ensures that laws are promulgated and publicly available, allowing subjects to ascertain their obligations without reliance on unpublished or obscure sources, undergirding the maxim that excuses no violation only if the is knowable. This requirement traces to historical practices of public posting and modern statutory in official records, fostering foreseeability essential to . In international contexts, bolsters the principle's application by demanding that norms be openly accessible to enable compliance and challenge.

Theoretical Perspectives

maintains that the validity and content of depend solely on social facts, such as enactment by a sovereign authority or acceptance within a legal , rather than on merits. In this framework, the principle of legality—embodied in maxims like nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without a prior ) and (no punishment without a prior )—serves as a formal requirement for the proper functioning of posited rules, ensuring predictability and guidance for conduct without invoking substantive justice. Positivists argue that these elements promote the efficacy of as a of human commands or norms, where retroactive application or vague prohibitions undermine the ability of individuals to conform their behavior to discernible standards. H.L.A. Hart, a prominent 20th-century positivist, integrated the principle of legality into his analysis of by emphasizing its role in secondary rules that confer powers and recognize primary obligations. Hart contended that clear, prospective laws are essential to avoid retrospective criminalization, which erodes the "guidance" function of rules and fosters arbitrary power, though he rejected Lon Fuller's "inner morality of law" as a necessary condition for legal validity. Instead, Hart viewed as a conventional feature of advanced legal systems, aligned with positivism's separation thesis, where law's existence precedes moral evaluation; for instance, he noted that Nazi decrees, though formally legal under positivist criteria, failed legality's formal tests like prospectivity, rendering them defective as law even on positivist grounds. This stance allows positivists to critique systemic failures without conceding that morality inherently validates law. Hans Kelsen's further exemplifies positivist endorsement of legality through a hierarchical norm structure, where lower norms derive validity from higher ones, presupposing a (basic norm) that demands formal enactment and non-retroactivity for coherence. Kelsen argued that legal norms must be created via authorized procedures to maintain the system's purity from moral or sociological impurities, positioning the principle of legality as a structural necessity rather than an ethical imperative; violations, such as ex post facto laws, disrupt the dynamic validity chain unless explicitly authorized by superior norms. John Austin's earlier command similarly framed laws as imperatives backed by sanctions, implying that punishments absent prior commands lack legal basis, though Austin focused less on prospectivity and more on law's imperative form divorced from rights. Collectively, these views treat legality as an instrumental positivist ideal, enhancing social order through explicit positing, but dispensable if a system sustains efficacy without it—evident in debates over , where positivists scrutinize treaty-based prohibitions for prior codification to uphold nullum crimen sine lege.

Natural Law and Moral Critiques

Natural law theorists critique the positivist underpinnings of the principle of legality by insisting that procedural safeguards like prospectivity and specificity derive their authority from alignment with immutable moral principles rooted in human reason and nature, rather than sovereign fiat alone. In this view, the principle serves the common good only when positive laws reflect eternal norms; otherwise, strict adherence risks enforcing arbitrary or vicious rules as "law." articulated this in the (c. 1270), stating that human law attains validity by participating in , rendering enactments contrary to fundamental justice mere "perversions of law" lacking obligatory force. Procedural variants of natural law, as developed by Lon L. Fuller in The Morality of Law (1964), integrate the principle's elements—such as non-retroactivity and clarity—into an "inner morality" of eight desiderata essential for any system to qualify as law, arguing that positivism's separation thesis obscures how formal defects inherently undermine moral reciprocity between rulers and ruled. Fuller challenged H.L.A. Hart's defense of positivism, contending that a regime systematically violating these, like Nazi Germany's retroactive decrees, forfeits legal character, not merely moral legitimacy. This perspective informed post-World War II reckonings, where natural law justifications supported prosecutions at Nuremberg (1945–1946) for acts like crimes against humanity, arguably transcending strict nullum crimen sine lege by invoking universal moral prohibitions discernible through reason. Broader critiques, drawing on foundations, fault the principle for prioritizing formal predictability over substantive rectitude, potentially insulating grave wrongs from accountability if precodified. Gustav Radbruch's post-1945 "" posited that extreme —deviating intolerably from reason—nullifies positive 's claim to validity, as seen in German courts overturning Nazi convictions under formally "legal" statutes. Contemporary natural lawyers like extend this, arguing in Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980) that while procedural legality protects against caprice, it demands supplementation by directives promoting basic human goods (e.g., life, truth-seeking), lest it enable flawed regimes to codify harms without rebuke. These views highlight systemic risks in positivist legality, where source-based validity ignores causal links between unjust rules and societal harm, as evidenced by empirical studies of authoritarian legalism correlating formal compliance with eroded trust and stability.

Instrumentalist and Substantive Justice Challenges

Instrumentalist approaches to , which treat legal rules as tools for achieving objectives or social welfare, often challenge the strict formal requirements of the principle of legality—such as prospectivity and clarity—by prioritizing outcomes over procedural constraints. Proponents argue that non-retroactivity, a core tenet of legality, can impede effective governance in dynamic environments, such as national emergencies or evolving threats, where retroactive measures might enhance deterrence or rectify unforeseen harms. For instance, consequentialist reasoning may justify ex post facto criminalization if it maximizes overall utility, as seen in debates over mechanisms where punishing past atrocities under newly defined crimes serves retributive and preventive goals despite violating formal prospectivity. This view posits that rigid adherence to pre-conduct law enactment risks under-deterring severe wrongs, particularly when societal consensus on shifts rapidly, rendering the principle an obstacle to instrumental efficacy rather than a safeguard. Critics of pure instrumentalism counter that such flexibility erodes predictability and invites arbitrary power, but instrumentalists maintain that legality's formalisms assume a static world incompatible with real-world contingencies, where law's value lies in its adaptive utility. Legal scholars have highlighted how an unchecked instrumental orientation undermines the by subordinating procedural limits to end-oriented manipulations, potentially leading to rule-bending that favors transient majorities or executives. Nonetheless, in practice, instrumental challenges manifest in regulatory contexts, such as retroactive tax adjustments or administrative sanctions, defended on grounds of and equity when prospective fails to anticipate economic disruptions. Substantive justice critiques assail the principle of legality for its formalist emphasis on procedure at the expense of content, arguing that clear, prospective laws can still embody if they lack alignment with underlying ethical norms. This perspective, rooted in traditions, contends that legality's neutrality toward substantive ends permits tyrannical or discriminatory statutes—so long as they meet formal criteria—thus failing to ensure , which demands laws reflecting universal truths like human dignity or fairness. For example, in , tribunals have occasionally subordinated strict nullum crimen sine lege to substantive imperatives, as in post-World War II prosecutions where retroactive application against war crimes was upheld to deliver accountability, prioritizing the gravity of offenses over formal antecedence. Such critiques highlight legality's limitation in addressing systemic inequities, where procedural compliance masks substantive harms, echoing positivist fallacies that elevate form over ethical substance. These challenges underscore a broader tension: while legality promotes stability, substantive advocates demand integration of , potentially requiring judicial or legislative override of formal rules to avert profound wrongs, as in cases where entrenched laws perpetuate despite clarity and prospectivity. Instrumentalists, by contrast, focus on empirical outcomes, but both strands critique legality's insulation from consequential or ethical scrutiny, advocating a more holistic framework where form yields to higher imperatives when verifiable injustices demand it.

Practical Applications

In Criminal Law

In criminal law, the principle of legality mandates that no individual may be convicted or punished for an act unless it was explicitly defined as a criminal offense by accessible, pre-existing legislation at the time of commission, ensuring predictability and protection against arbitrary state power. This doctrine, encapsulated in the Latin maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, bifurcates into prohibitions on undefined crimes (nullum crimen sine lege) and unprescribed penalties (nulla poena sine lege), thereby requiring statutory delineation of both prohibited conduct and applicable sanctions. Courts enforce this by invalidating retroactive applications that criminalize prior innocent acts or impose harsher penalties post-offense, as seen in constitutional bans on ex post facto laws. The specificity component demands that criminal statutes be sufficiently clear to provide fair notice of proscribed behavior, averting vagueness that could enable discriminatory enforcement. For example, under the U.S. void-for-vagueness doctrine, statutes failing to offer precise standards—such as requiring "ordinary" understanding of illegality—are struck down, as in Kolender v. Lawson (1983), where a law mandating "credible and reliable" identification was deemed unconstitutionally indefinite, violating . Similarly, in European jurisdictions, Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits conviction for acts not criminal under national or at the time, with penalties not exceeding those in force then, and subsequent lighter penalties retroactively applied. Practically, the principle curtails judicial expansion of crimes beyond legislative intent, prohibiting analogical extensions in civil law systems and limiting precedent to interpretations within statutory bounds. It also governs procedural elements, such as and rules, ensuring they do not retroactively disadvantage defendants, though debates persist on its scope over procedural innovations. In sentencing, penalties must adhere to legislated frameworks, barring escalations, which safeguards proportionality and prevents excesses like those historically critiqued in arbitrary regimes. Violations have prompted international tribunals, like the , to uphold legality in prosecuting atrocities only under foreseeable prohibitions, rejecting expansive readings absent explicit treaty or predating the acts.

In Administrative and Regulatory Contexts

In administrative and regulatory law, the principle of legality requires that executive agencies and regulatory bodies derive their authority explicitly from statute or constitutional provisions, ensuring actions remain within prescribed legal bounds and avoid arbitrariness. This manifests through doctrines like ultra vires, which voids administrative decisions exceeding delegated powers, as seen in common law jurisdictions where agencies cannot expand statutory mandates without clear legislative intent. Regulatory rulemaking processes embody prospectivity by mandating notice-and-comment periods and reasoned to provide affected parties advance knowledge of obligations, as codified in the U.S. of 1946 (APA), which prohibits retroactive rules absent express congressional authorization. Clarity and specificity are enforced via standards, such as APA Section 706(2)(A), allowing courts to invalidate rules deemed "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," thereby checking vague or overbroad regulations. In the European Union, the principle demands a precise legal basis for all administrative acts, with the Court of Justice enforcing lawfulness through annulment actions under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as in cases invalidating Commission decisions lacking explicit empowerment. Violations often arise in enforcement, where agencies impose penalties without statutory grounding, prompting reviews that prioritize textual fidelity over policy deference, as reinforced by the EU's rule-of-law framework emphasizing non-retroactivity and foreseeability. Empirical data from U.S. regulatory dockets show that between 2017 and 2021, over 20% of challenged rules under the APA were struck down on legality grounds, highlighting the principle's role in constraining agency overreach amid expansive delegations. Similar patterns in infringement proceedings underscore : ambiguous enabling statutes correlate with higher invalidation rates, affirming that legality curtails regulatory expansionism by tethering to verifiable legal texts.

In International Law

In international law, the principle of legality prohibits the retroactive criminalization of conduct and ensures that penalties are prescribed by law in advance, serving to protect individuals from arbitrary prosecution by international bodies. This doctrine, rooted in the Latin maxim nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, requires criminal liability to be foreseeable and based on pre-existing legal norms, whether treaty-based or customary. It is recognized as a general principle of law and a norm of customary international law applicable to international criminal proceedings. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) first articulated the principle in Article 11(2), stating that no one shall be held guilty of a penal offence for any act or omission that did not constitute such an offence under national or at the time it was committed, nor subjected to a heavier penalty than that applicable at the time of commission. This provision influenced subsequent binding instruments, including Article 15(1) of the (adopted 1966, entered into force 1976), which mirrors the prohibition on retroactive criminal laws and penalties while allowing lighter penalties for prior offenses if beneficial to the accused. These norms apply universally, binding states parties and informing the of international tribunals. In , is codified in the of the (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002). Article 22, "Nullum crimen sine lege," stipulates that criminal responsibility arises only if the conduct constitutes a crime within the Court's jurisdiction at the time it occurs, with definitions strictly construed and not extended by analogy; ambiguities must favor the accused. Article 23, "," complements this by requiring that applicable penalties be provided for in advance by law. The Statute's temporal jurisdiction is prospective, limited to crimes committed after for state parties, though referrals can cover earlier acts under UN Security Council auspices if consistent with . Ad hoc tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former (established 1993), have applied by grounding convictions in norms existing at the time of the offenses, such as prohibitions on war crimes and predating the conflicts in the 1990s. This approach reconciles the doctrine with uncodified custom, requiring proof of the norm's specificity, generality, and foreseeability to avoid retroactivity, as affirmed in cases like Prosecutor v. Tadić (ICTY Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999). However, critiques persist that expansive interpretations of modes of liability, such as , risk undermining 's clarity requirement, though courts counter that such doctrines reflect pre-existing customary rules. The principle extends to through customary rules prohibiting punishment for acts not criminalized under national or at the time, as documented by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Violations, such as retroactive sanctions in hybrid tribunals, have been challenged under this framework, emphasizing the need for accessible and precise legal definitions to ensure fair standards under Article 14 of the ICCPR. Overall, while codification strengthens enforcement, reliance on custom demands rigorous evidentiary thresholds to uphold the doctrine's protective function against state or institutional overreach.

Jurisdictional Implementations

In the , of legality is a cornerstone of the , requiring that criminal offences and penalties be clearly defined in accessible law prior to their commission, with a strong prohibition on retrospective criminalisation. This is enshrined in presumptions and reinforced by section 7 of the , which incorporates Article 7 of the (ECHR), stating that no one shall be held guilty of an for acts not criminalised under national or at the time they occurred, and that penalties must be prescribed by law. Courts interpret penal statutes strictly to ensure foreseeability, applying that ambiguity in criminal provisions is resolved in favour of the , thereby upholding and preventing arbitrary enforcement. The presumption against retrospectivity holds that statutes, particularly those affecting or imposing penalties, do not apply to events before their enactment unless expressly states otherwise, a rooted in protecting individuals from unforeseeable liability. This presumption is rebuttable but rarely overridden in criminal contexts; for instance, the War Crimes Act 1991 created retrospective liability for certain acts during , but such exceptions are exceptional and subject to ECHR scrutiny for proportionality and foreseeability. Violations can render convictions incompatible with Article 7, as seen in cases where retrospective changes to sentencing regimes, such as those affecting parole eligibility for terrorist offenders, have been challenged for undermining the penalty applicable at the time of offence. Clarity and specificity in are enforced through interpretive techniques like the principle of legality in statutory construction, which presumes does not intend to erode fundamental rights—such as from arbitrary detention or fair trial—without explicit wording. Vague or overbroad provisions risk being "read down" to conform with ECHR standards or declared incompatible, promoting precise drafting in areas like regulatory offences where ambiguity could enable executive overreach. tempers absolute enforcement, allowing override via clear legislative intent, yet under the Human Rights Act ensures alignment with international obligations, balancing democratic authority with individual protections.

United States

The principle of legality in the requires that criminal liability and punishment arise only from clear, prospectively applicable statutes enacted by legislative bodies, safeguarding against arbitrary or retroactive governmental power. This doctrine, often expressed as nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege ("no crime, no punishment without law"), is constitutionally anchored in Article I's Ex Post Facto Clauses, which prohibit federal (Section 9, Clause 3) and state (Section 10, Clause 1) legislatures from enacting laws that retroactively criminalize innocent acts, aggravate penalties for completed offenses, or eliminate defenses available at the time of the conduct. These provisions, ratified in 1788 and informed by English abuses like retrospective attainders, ensure prospectivity and definiteness, preventing convictions for undefined or unforeseeable offenses. The Clauses do not bar civil retroactivity or ameliorative changes, such as reduced sentences, but strictly limit criminal applications to protect foreseeability. Complementing these, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' Clauses enforce specificity via the void-for-vagueness doctrine, invalidating statutes that fail to provide ordinary persons fair notice of prohibited conduct or invite arbitrary enforcement by officials. Originating in cases like United States v. Cohen (1921), which struck down an imprecise Espionage Act provision, the doctrine demands penal laws define offenses with sufficient precision, as affirmed in Kolender v. Lawson (1983), where a statute lacking objective standards was deemed unconstitutionally vague. This applies beyond to civil regulations implicating , though courts uphold statutes with ascertainable standards via or common usage. Relatedly, the resolves statutory ambiguities in favor of defendants, reinforcing legality by disfavoring expansive interpretations that criminalize unanticipated conduct. In application, these mechanisms constrain federal and state prosecutions, as in Rogers v. Tennessee (2001), where the limited retroactive judicial expansions of common-law rules under to avoid unforeseen liability, though it upheld the change there as foreseeable. The principles also intersect with the Bill of Attainder Clause (Article I, Sections 9 and 10), barring legislative punishments without trial, ensuring no ad hoc criminalization. Despite robust protections, challenges persist in regulatory contexts, where administrative rules must still satisfy vagueness scrutiny if delegating broad discretion, as seen in invalidations of overly indefinite environmental or securities provisions. Overall, U.S. implementation prioritizes legislative clarity over judicial or executive improvisation, though enforcement varies by circuit, with the intervening in landmark reviews to maintain uniformity.

Civil Law Traditions

Civil law traditions, originating from the systematization of in Justinian's (compiled between 529 and 534 AD) and revived through medieval glossators, emphasize codified statutes as the primary and authoritative source of law, thereby embedding the principle of legality through explicit, accessible, and hierarchical norms that limit judicial creativity. This codification mandates that legal rules be prospective, clear, and promulgated in advance, ensuring citizens can anticipate consequences and preventing ad hoc judicial expansions of liability, particularly in penal contexts where nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege prohibits punishment absent prior statutory definition. In these systems, legislatures enact comprehensive codes—such as civil, penal, and commercial—organized logically by subject, which judges apply deductively rather than inductively via precedents, reinforcing and reducing arbitrariness. France exemplifies this tradition's implementation, with Article 8 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (August 26, 1789) establishing that "no one may be punished except by virtue of a law drawn up and promulgated before the offense is committed, and which must have been strictly necessary." This was codified in the Penal Code of 1810 and reaffirmed in the 1994 Penal Code (Law No. 92-683 of July 22, 1992), which mandates strict interpretation of criminal provisions and bars analogies that broaden offenses, as affirmed by the Constitutional Council in decisions like the 1982 ruling on retroactivity. German civil law similarly constitutionalizes the principle in Article 103(2) of the (effective May 23, 1949): "An act may be punished only if it was defined by a law as a punishable offence before the act was committed," integrated into the Penal Code (§1 StGB) and upheld by the , as in its 2014 order emphasizing coverage of all criminal applications including justifications. The (BGB), effective January 1, 1900, extends this predictability to civil matters through abstract general clauses tempered by legislative precision. Across civil law jurisdictions, including (Constitution Article 25, 1948) and (Constitution Article 9.3, 1978), the tradition prohibits retroactive penal laws except those mitigating punishment and requires sufficient definiteness for foreseeability, as interpreted under Article 7 by the . Codified structures facilitate , with bodies like France's Conseil Constitutionnel or Germany's Bundesverfassungsgericht invalidating vague statutes violating legality, such as Germany's 2005 strike on indefinite tax norms. This framework, while promoting uniformity—evident in the 19th-century wave of codifications influencing over 150 countries—can encounter challenges from overly general code provisions, necessitating interpretive doctrines like to preserve strict application.

Criticisms and Contemporary Debates

Challenges to Clarity in Modern Legislation

Modern legislation often suffers from , where statutes fail to provide sufficient clarity on prohibited conduct, leading to constitutional challenges under doctrines like in the United States. This requires that laws give fair notice to individuals of ordinary intelligence about what is prohibited, preventing arbitrary by officials. Vague terms such as "substantially similar" in controlled substances laws have been struck down for lacking definable boundaries, as seen in cases where courts found such language compelled guesswork rather than clear guidance. Such ambiguity not only risks punishing the innocent by failing to warn of offenses but also invites discriminatory application, undermining . Overcomplexity compounds these issues, as contemporary statutes have grown exponentially in length and interconnectedness, rendering them difficult for even legal experts to parse. , the federal tax code alone exceeds 4 million words, with the broader U.S. Code exhibiting network-like structures that evolve over time, reflecting societal but sacrificing accessibility. Studies quantify this through metrics like lexical diversity and syntactic depth, showing that legal scales sublinearly with size—approximately geometrically with a of 0.2 for U.S. localities—yet still overwhelms practical comprehension. In the , empirical analysis of directives reveals that higher correlates with nearly halved compliance rates by member states, as intricate drafting obscures implementation requirements. Legislative processes exacerbate these problems through rushed drafting and reliance on secondary or delegated legislation, particularly in parliamentary systems like the . Omnibus bills and heterogeneous authorship—multiple contributors without unified style—result in inconsistent terminology and poor structure, as critiqued in comparisons of U.S. and U.K. practices. In the , calls for "easification" via layered drafting aim to mitigate this, separating core rules from details, but persistent persists due to multilingual demands. These challenges erode the by shifting interpretive authority to courts and agencies, fostering unpredictability and enabling post-hoc expansions of statutory reach beyond legislative intent.

Exceptions and Erosion in Crises

The principle of nullum crimen sine lege, prohibiting criminal liability without prior, accessible, and foreseeable , remains non-derogable even during states of under instruments like Article 15 of the , which explicitly bars retroactive criminalization or punishment except for acts punishable under general principles of recognized internationally. Similarly, Article 7 of the upholds this core safeguard against analogy or expanded interpretation in crises, as affirmed in General Comment No. 29 by the UN Human Rights Committee, emphasizing that legality must persist to prevent arbitrary power. Formal exceptions are thus precluded, yet crises enable emergency legislation that tests these boundaries through hasty drafting, broad delegations, or reliance on pre-existing vague statutes, undermining the principle's requirements for precision and predictability. In practice, states of emergency often erode legality by authorizing executive decrees that criminalize non-compliance with fluid restrictions, such as public health orders during the COVID-19 pandemic, where over 100 countries invoked emergency powers by March 2020, frequently bypassing full legislative scrutiny. For instance, in Italy, decree-laws under Article 77 of the Constitution imposed penalties for violating containment measures, but critics argued these stretched existing public health codes, risking nullum crimen violations by introducing unforeseeable applications without adequate parliamentary debate. In France, the 2015-2017 state of emergency post-terror attacks and its 2020 COVID extension empowered prefects to impose house arrests and fines via administrative acts, later challenged in the Conseil d'État for insufficient specificity in defining offenses, illustrating how delegated powers dilute legislative foreseeability. Such measures, while notionally grounded in prior laws like public health or security statutes, often exhibit post-hoc rationalization, with courts in multiple jurisdictions—such as Germany's Federal Constitutional Court reviewing COVID fines—scrutinizing proportionality but rarely overturning on pure legality grounds, allowing incremental erosion. Prolonged emergencies exacerbate this decay, as seen in Hungary's 2020 Authorization Act, which permitted rule by decree indefinitely for COVID response, enabling criminal penalties under amended criminal codes that expanded "endangering public health" offenses; the European Commission flagged this as undermining legal certainty, though domestic courts upheld it under national emergency clauses. Historically, post-9/11 U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006 retroactively validated conspiracy as a war crime for Guantánamo detainees, contravening strict nulla poena sine lege per Supreme Court precedents like Boumediene v. Bush (2008), which struck down suspensions of habeas but left definitional ambiguities intact. Empirical analyses, such as the World Justice Project's 2023 Rule of Law Index, document a global dip in criminal justice constraints on government powers during crises, with scores declining in 65% of countries from 2019-2022 due to opaque emergency criminalizations. This pattern reveals causal risks: crises amplify executive latitude, fostering laws that prioritize expediency over exactitude, as theorized in scholarship on "crisis speech" dominating governance, where repeated invocations normalize exceptions and weaken the principle's bulwark against arbitrariness.

Implications for Rule of Law and Liberty

The principle of legality, embodying maxims such as nullum crimen sine lege and , safeguards the by mandating that criminal liability and penalties arise solely from pre-existing, clearly articulated statutes, thereby constraining arbitrary state power and promoting legal predictability. This foreseeability enables individuals to anticipate the consequences of their conduct, fostering a framework where government accountability aligns with stable norms rather than ad hoc discretion. Violations of these tenets, such as retroactive , historically provoked Enlightenment-era revivals of the principle to curb monarchical abuses, underscoring its role in transitioning from absolutism to constitutional governance. For individual liberty, delimits state intrusion by requiring laws to be general, prospective, and sufficiently precise to avoid overbreadth, thus preserving spheres of unbound by unforeseeable prohibitions. In practice, this manifests in interpretive presumptions against statutes encroaching on common-law rights without explicit wording, as articulated in common-law jurisdictions to protect freedoms like speech and from implicit erosion. Empirical assessments link robust legality adherence to higher rule-of-law indices, where countries scoring above 0.7 on composite metrics (encompassing clarity and non-retroactivity) correlate with greater , per global benchmarks evaluating over 140 nations annually. Contemporary erosions, however, pose risks: vague modern statutes, particularly in administrative offenses, delegate interpretive latitude to agencies, contravening nullum crimen sine lege and enabling prosecutions for unforeseeable violations that chill enterprise and expression. In crises, such as post-9/11 expansions or pandemic responses, temporary derogations from strict legality—often justified under necessity doctrines—have prompted scholarly critiques for normalizing executive overreach, with data from 2020-2022 showing rule-of-law declines in 65% of democracies via expanded emergency powers lacking sunset clauses. These trends, while defended in some legal commentary as pragmatic adaptations, arguably subordinate to securitized , as evidenced by increased litigation over retroactive applications in jurisdictions like the , where foreseeability challenges under Article 7 of the rose 40% from 2015 to 2023.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/legality
  2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legality
  3. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/3673/2ALSAF5.pdf?sequence=2
  4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-law-journal/article/principle-of-legality/EC9689B4C2334750AB3DF806AF330A6B
  5. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/EC9689B4C2334750AB3DF806AF330A6B/S0008197320000598a.pdf/the-principle-of-legality.pdf
  6. https://journals.openedition.org/revus/9668
  7. https://ideas.repec.org/p/smo/jpaper/044dg.html
  8. https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/principles/principle-of-legality/
  9. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/legality_n
  10. https://www.etymonline.com/word/legality
  11. https://polsci.institute/classical-political-philosophy/aristotle-justice-rule-law/
  12. https://lawexplores.com/aristotles-philosophy-of-law/
  13. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ciceros-natural-law-political-philosophy
  14. https://minervawisdom.com/2019/02/09/cicero-and-the-foundations-of-natural-law/
  15. https://www.longdom.org/open-access-pdfs/the-philosophical-underpinnings-of-legal-systems-schools-of-jurisprudential-thought.pdf
  16. https://online.law.tulane.edu/blog/law-in-the-ancient-world
  17. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/rule-law
  18. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5704&context=faculty_scholarship
  19. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/crimes-and-punishments
  20. https://cccct.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/pics/Beccarias_On_Crimes_and_PunishmentsA_Mirror_on_the_History_of_the_Foundations_of_Modern_Criminal_Law.pdf
  21. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/montesquieu-and-the-separation-of-powers
  22. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-napoleonic-code/
  23. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-law-in-europe/enlightenment-and-the-law/42214D20A182241140C406C113389240
  24. https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=jplp
  25. https://hal.science/hal-03931244v1/document
  26. https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article-abstract/5/4/1009/792804
  27. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ilp-pji/cl-dp/index.html
  28. https://utrechtlawreview.org/articles/10.36633/ulr.604
  29. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e854
  30. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/nullum_crimen_sine_lege
  31. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3853888
  32. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art11g.html
  33. https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Retrospective_Punishments&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
  34. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-1/ALDE_00013192/
  35. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
  36. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
  37. https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_7_eng
  38. https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/3.htm
  39. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/commentary-on-the-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights/article-15-retroactive-criminal-law/D8E5723F3C92C7B12ACE66C7ED606DF4
  40. https://academic.oup.com/book/57225/chapter/474881980
  41. https://gjil.scholasticahq.com/article/40363-law-only-for-the-future-nonretroactivity-as-a-fundamental-principle-of-international-law/attachment/134563.pdf
  42. https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_111011_342362219c.pdf
  43. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/void-for-vagueness-and-the-due-process-clause-doctrine-and-practice
  44. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-8-1/ALDE_00013739/
  45. https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/19/4/649/5717768
  46. https://legisqo.com/maxims-concerning-legal-certainty/
  47. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/
  48. https://iep.utm.edu/legalpos/
  49. https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Positivism_and_Legality_Waldron.pdf
  50. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1693&context=smulr
  51. https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-83-4-Waldron.pdf
  52. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-theory/
  53. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/context/tcl/article/2087/viewcontent/03._Kelsen_s_Pure_Theory_of_Law.pdf
  54. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/austin-john/
  55. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2046311
  56. https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
  57. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3669&context=vlr
  58. https://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~horty/courses/readings/hart-1958-positivism-separation.pdf
  59. https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2360&context=lawreview
  60. https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1264&context=lj
  61. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3435699
  62. https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/17d9a271-0183-4f5f-94ac-a5ec89f54705/content
  63. https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/40/1/132/5716712
  64. https://www.american.edu/spa/publicpurpose/upload/retroactive-criminalization-a-judicial-paradox.pdf
  65. https://jilc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/The-Tension-Between-Legal-Instrumentalism-And-The-Rule-of-Law.pdf
  66. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11293
  67. https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2817&context=law-review
  68. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1621&context=facpubs
  69. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:65c45b84-c083-4a5c-9321-9d2529df5182/files/rfb494922z
  70. https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/speechpapers/Rule-of-law-Guiding-Principle-or-Catchphrase.pdf
  71. https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/49-principles-legality-and-proportionality-criminal-offences-and-penalties
  72. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC1/MC1-Part1Section2.pdf
  73. https://journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/juridica/article/viewFile/668/605
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237725913_THE_PRINCIPLE_OF_LEGALITY_IN_ADMINISTRATIVE_LAW_INTERNATIONALISATION
  75. https://www.reneual.eu/projects-and-publications/reneual-2-0?view=article&id=21&catid=2
  76. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3754&context=facpub
  77. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-003-9860?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  78. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41546
  79. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10558
  80. https://pclt.defense.gov/Portals/140/Documents/Regulatory/apa.pdf
  81. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2010/432745/IPOL-JURI_NT%282010%29432745_EN.pdf
  82. https://www2.arpel.org/fulldisplay/s4BI8H/245387/AdministrativeLawOfTheEuropeanUnion.pdf
  83. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/what-rule-law_en
  84. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40803-022-00176-8
  85. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/dc-circuit-review-reviewed-administrative-law-without-the-administrative-procedure-act/
  86. https://academic.oup.com/book/33025/chapter/280786569
  87. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf
  88. https://cld.irmct.org/notions/show/617/nullum-crimen-sine-lege
  89. https://academic.oup.com/clp/article/75/1/45/6724313
  90. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/right/no-punishment-without-law/
  91. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-government-and-the-principle-of-legality-administrative-law-essay.php
  92. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/commentary/halsburys-laws-of-england/rights-freedoms/757-prohibition-of-retrospective-punishment-in-english-common-law
  93. https://www.4pumpcourt.com/buildingsafetybill/retrospective-legislation-at-common-law/
  94. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06454/SN06454.pdf
  95. https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2023/05/10/protection-of-the-public-and-the-retrospective-application-of-penalties/
  96. https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/446158/Vol412_Chan.pdf
  97. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/09/12/michael-foran-interpretation-after-the-human-rights-act-the-principle-of-legality-and-the-rule-of-law/
  98. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/social-historical-sciences/constitution-unit/constitution-unit-publications/constitution-unit-explainers/what-rule-law
  99. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/rule-of-law-principles-challenges-and-government-commitments/
  100. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-3/overview-of-ex-post-facto-laws
  101. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-5/ALDE_00001101/
  102. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-7-3/ALDE_00000261/
  103. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vagueness_doctrine
  104. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/451/
  105. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.pdf
  106. http://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/legal-traditions
  107. https://www.elysee.fr/en/french-presidency/the-declaration-of-the-rights-of-man-and-of-the-citizen
  108. https://czasopisma.inp.pan.pl/index.php/pyil/article/download/2611/2191
  109. https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2014/12/rk20141208_2bvr045011en.html
  110. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=jtlp
  111. https://journals.pan.pl/Content/106652/PDF/08_Rychlewska.pdf?handler=pdf
  112. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/vagueness/
  113. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13091
  114. https://www.cato.org/blog/vague-laws-defy-rule-law
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7599339/
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10894695/
  117. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/research-finds-clarity-is-key-to-ensuring-legislation-is-implemented
  118. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2498&context=facpub
  119. https://constitution-unit.com/2021/10/13/reliance-on-secondary-legislation-has-resulted-in-significant-problems-it-is-time-to-rethink-how-such-laws-are-created/
  120. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2025/776370/IUST_IDA%282025%29776370_EN.pdf
  121. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-theory/article/problem-of-complex-legislation/670046444760B57B0FAE844D6E6ECFBD
  122. https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/gencomm/hrc29.html
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7427226/
  124. https://reconnect-europe.eu/blog/italys-covid-19-legislative-response-adjusting-along-the-way/
  125. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=fjil
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621005761
  127. https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/23/1/113/8137750
  128. https://worldjusticeproject.org/news/us-weakened-rule-law-persists
  129. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1645991112000047
  130. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/covid-19-has-worsened-a-shaky-rule-of-law-environment/
  131. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/ecde3799-4c55-4164-981c-4d322f5738ee/content
  132. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151&context=law_jurisprudence
  133. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/context/facpubs/article/1416/viewcontent/97GeoLJ119.pdf
  134. https://academic.oup.com/book/9766/chapter/156948606
  135. https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/overview/what-rule-law
  136. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7786&context=jclc
  137. https://www.elsevier.es/en-revista-tekhne-review-applied-management-350-articulo-the-erosion-rule-law-in-S1645991112000047
  138. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2917&context=lawreview
  139. https://iris.unitn.it/retrieve/e3835196-7a99-72ef-e053-3705fe0ad821/PhD_Tesi_Sara_Paiusco.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.