thank you very good see all so there’s
my first slide and so what I’m going to
talk to you today is about rule of law
so let me just tell you how I became
interested in the rule of law as was
mentioned I spent about 15 years
thinking and writing and researching
intellectual property rights in various
ways and about three or four years ago I
found myself in the workshop on
traditional knowledge with two groups
and that were one group of people saying
that the exploitation of traditional
knowledge is an outrage and it needs to
be stopped in all sorts of ways another
group of people say the only hope for
traditional knowledge was for it to be
exploited because then it will be
reproduced what was interesting about
both of these groups was despite they
had completely conflicting political
positions they both agree that their
positions would be furthered by the
introduction of various legal mechanisms
in other words they believed in the rule
of law
so that was their sort of central belief
so let me first of all just check other
any anarchists in the room anybody is in
any case excellent okay well in that
case I just like you to spend a couple
of seconds thinking to yourself if you
are asked in the punch defend the
proposition the rule of law is a bad
thing how would you go about can you do
it can you immediately come up with an
idea about why ruling law is not welcome
it’s not something that we should use to
manage our lives just get yourself a
couple of seconds
think carefully given that none of your
habitus I’m going to assume if most you
would have found that proposition
actually quite difficult now what’s
interesting about the proposition that
the rule of law is a good thing is that
it is widely shared around the world
here are four leaders who’ve all
recently said something in the way of
supporting the rule of law you’ll notice
I haven’t included Donald Trump
[Music]
I think you laughter indicates why I
might love again mostly across the the
to the other rulers of our world the
governments government dreamers the
notion of the rule of law has taken this
being a common sense it’s something that
is just regarded as being sensible it’s
something that we should all agree with
and just to give you a suggestion about
why that’s actually quite widespread I
don’t know how many of you saw the
trailer for frost/nixon some years ago
so film about the interaction the
engagement between a danger cross and
President Nixon quite later on in its
presidential career around the time that
Watergate was happening and in that
trailer there’s a series of discussions
between with Frost
and Mickelson and at one point that’s
the trainer sort of gets to the end
reaches its pick then it’s peak worth
frost ask Nixon something and mixes
responses and artists to read this or
rip it down when the President does it
that means it’s not illegal and the way
it’s presented and the game of salmon
consumption will already laughing the
way it’s presented is to say that’s
actually shocking the reason it’s
shocking is because we all know that the
rule of law is preferable to the rule of
men and when I say the world of men what
I mean is the rule of men and force the
rule of law de Cates something about
legitimacy it relates something about
social justification the rule of men is
about violence oppression and false and
so what we see when we think about that
term the rule of law is a rejection of
what we might call our Betruger
the government of individuals with our
own interests again the positive
exception of Donald Trump when we think
about that that’s how we
how society works and so to try and put
a bit of flesh on that what I’m going to
suggest you is actually one of the
reasons that we think that is because we
can have lots of different views about
the rule of law but we can actually keep
them all in mind at the same time or we
can have conversations where it’s not
necessarily obvious we’re talking about
different things the reason for that is
I like to think of the rule of law on a
continuum at one end right at one in
here we have the thin rule of law and
right this other area we have the thick
rule of law and there’s a continual line
along which we could perhaps allocate
particular places that any particular
opinion of that new law now right at
that thinnest end that’s we’re going to
have things like a par site we’re going
to have things like the Third Reich and
these are areas where the law is still
enacted but the outcomes are not really
what we regard as just or fair
so in Nazi regimes in apartheid regime
certain members in population were
treated in a way that we would not
regard as being strictly justified or
but acts fair or even Pleasant so from
that point of view that’s very thing
that’s about procedure you have legal
procedures but somehow they don’t have
the sort of content we might want to
have right at the other end we can move
on that line by stuffing more and more
into the rule of law and right at the
other end we have the sort of idea of
the rule of law that sees it as being
coterminous with or collecting with
ideas around international human rights
the notions of justice the notions of
fairness and what we’ve done in that
move through thin to thick is we’ve
introduced all sorts of Nohr today
around morality and effort so the rule
of law when we talk about the rule of
law we can be – people talk about it one
of whom thinks actually it’s really just
about procedure and another person
thinks it’s really about international
human rights but their joy human
excuse me the joy of the rule of law as
a way of thinking and they was all of
those people to talk together now
actually I think the real thing that is
at the center of this is your desire to
see justice to see fairness and when we
start thinking about the rule of law one
of the things that often becomes clear
to us when we try to decide is this
something that really is the rule of law
against something that perhaps isn’t is
whether we think it is just and I want
to finish just by reminding you if you
know this already but if you don’t
introduce you to somebody this is a
historian well-known marked his
historical EP Thompson and EP Thompson
spent a lot of time thinking about law
in the 18th century
he wrote a fabulous book called wigs and
panties and in wigs and punishments what
Johnson does is he looks at the way the
ruling class in 18th century Britain ran
the legal system and of course what he
talks about is what were then called the
black axe and the black axe were all
about hanging essentially deep gustave
sheep hanging people who in some way
stole things that belong to the rich and
wealthy but what Thompson concluded was
even though the law was being used in
that life because it was pretending or
at least trying to be the rule of law
wrong the rule of men at any time it had
to deliver something that looked like
justice and because it had to deliver
something to look like justice so people
would actually regard as legitimate the
follow the law without being forced him
that meant that actually for some of the
time it delivered the very justice that
it was pretending to live so what Tom’s
will compute was actually even when the
law looks like procedural law the very
act of getting people to follow the law
voluntarily means at some point it must
produce justice and by doing so even if
that justice is incomplete or partial
the rule of law remains and unqualified
human good and I leave you with that
thought any time somebody says you are
I’m not so in the law I’m not
certain people
only you should dismiss that the rule of
law is always a good thing it may be
variable it may be employed in different
ways but just to come back to Donald
Trump what is the most interesting thing
about American politics moment is both
at the same time that Trump is trying to
reject the rule of law in many ways
actually is acting to keep him under
control it is undoubtedly our qualified
in the good thank you very much
[Applause]
my first slide and so what I’m going to
talk to you today is about rule of law
so let me just tell you how I became
interested in the rule of law as was
mentioned I spent about 15 years
thinking and writing and researching
intellectual property rights in various
ways and about three or four years ago I
found myself in the workshop on
traditional knowledge with two groups
and that were one group of people saying
that the exploitation of traditional
knowledge is an outrage and it needs to
be stopped in all sorts of ways another
group of people say the only hope for
traditional knowledge was for it to be
exploited because then it will be
reproduced what was interesting about
both of these groups was despite they
had completely conflicting political
positions they both agree that their
positions would be furthered by the
introduction of various legal mechanisms
in other words they believed in the rule
of law
so that was their sort of central belief
so let me first of all just check other
any anarchists in the room anybody is in
any case excellent okay well in that
case I just like you to spend a couple
of seconds thinking to yourself if you
are asked in the punch defend the
proposition the rule of law is a bad
thing how would you go about can you do
it can you immediately come up with an
idea about why ruling law is not welcome
it’s not something that we should use to
manage our lives just get yourself a
couple of seconds
think carefully given that none of your
habitus I’m going to assume if most you
would have found that proposition
actually quite difficult now what’s
interesting about the proposition that
the rule of law is a good thing is that
it is widely shared around the world
here are four leaders who’ve all
recently said something in the way of
supporting the rule of law you’ll notice
I haven’t included Donald Trump
[Music]
I think you laughter indicates why I
might love again mostly across the the
to the other rulers of our world the
governments government dreamers the
notion of the rule of law has taken this
being a common sense it’s something that
is just regarded as being sensible it’s
something that we should all agree with
and just to give you a suggestion about
why that’s actually quite widespread I
don’t know how many of you saw the
trailer for frost/nixon some years ago
so film about the interaction the
engagement between a danger cross and
President Nixon quite later on in its
presidential career around the time that
Watergate was happening and in that
trailer there’s a series of discussions
between with Frost
and Mickelson and at one point that’s
the trainer sort of gets to the end
reaches its pick then it’s peak worth
frost ask Nixon something and mixes
responses and artists to read this or
rip it down when the President does it
that means it’s not illegal and the way
it’s presented and the game of salmon
consumption will already laughing the
way it’s presented is to say that’s
actually shocking the reason it’s
shocking is because we all know that the
rule of law is preferable to the rule of
men and when I say the world of men what
I mean is the rule of men and force the
rule of law de Cates something about
legitimacy it relates something about
social justification the rule of men is
about violence oppression and false and
so what we see when we think about that
term the rule of law is a rejection of
what we might call our Betruger
the government of individuals with our
own interests again the positive
exception of Donald Trump when we think
about that that’s how we
how society works and so to try and put
a bit of flesh on that what I’m going to
suggest you is actually one of the
reasons that we think that is because we
can have lots of different views about
the rule of law but we can actually keep
them all in mind at the same time or we
can have conversations where it’s not
necessarily obvious we’re talking about
different things the reason for that is
I like to think of the rule of law on a
continuum at one end right at one in
here we have the thin rule of law and
right this other area we have the thick
rule of law and there’s a continual line
along which we could perhaps allocate
particular places that any particular
opinion of that new law now right at
that thinnest end that’s we’re going to
have things like a par site we’re going
to have things like the Third Reich and
these are areas where the law is still
enacted but the outcomes are not really
what we regard as just or fair
so in Nazi regimes in apartheid regime
certain members in population were
treated in a way that we would not
regard as being strictly justified or
but acts fair or even Pleasant so from
that point of view that’s very thing
that’s about procedure you have legal
procedures but somehow they don’t have
the sort of content we might want to
have right at the other end we can move
on that line by stuffing more and more
into the rule of law and right at the
other end we have the sort of idea of
the rule of law that sees it as being
coterminous with or collecting with
ideas around international human rights
the notions of justice the notions of
fairness and what we’ve done in that
move through thin to thick is we’ve
introduced all sorts of Nohr today
around morality and effort so the rule
of law when we talk about the rule of
law we can be – people talk about it one
of whom thinks actually it’s really just
about procedure and another person
thinks it’s really about international
human rights but their joy human
excuse me the joy of the rule of law as
a way of thinking and they was all of
those people to talk together now
actually I think the real thing that is
at the center of this is your desire to
see justice to see fairness and when we
start thinking about the rule of law one
of the things that often becomes clear
to us when we try to decide is this
something that really is the rule of law
against something that perhaps isn’t is
whether we think it is just and I want
to finish just by reminding you if you
know this already but if you don’t
introduce you to somebody this is a
historian well-known marked his
historical EP Thompson and EP Thompson
spent a lot of time thinking about law
in the 18th century
he wrote a fabulous book called wigs and
panties and in wigs and punishments what
Johnson does is he looks at the way the
ruling class in 18th century Britain ran
the legal system and of course what he
talks about is what were then called the
black axe and the black axe were all
about hanging essentially deep gustave
sheep hanging people who in some way
stole things that belong to the rich and
wealthy but what Thompson concluded was
even though the law was being used in
that life because it was pretending or
at least trying to be the rule of law
wrong the rule of men at any time it had
to deliver something that looked like
justice and because it had to deliver
something to look like justice so people
would actually regard as legitimate the
follow the law without being forced him
that meant that actually for some of the
time it delivered the very justice that
it was pretending to live so what Tom’s
will compute was actually even when the
law looks like procedural law the very
act of getting people to follow the law
voluntarily means at some point it must
produce justice and by doing so even if
that justice is incomplete or partial
the rule of law remains and unqualified
human good and I leave you with that
thought any time somebody says you are
I’m not so in the law I’m not
certain people
only you should dismiss that the rule of
law is always a good thing it may be
variable it may be employed in different
ways but just to come back to Donald
Trump what is the most interesting thing
about American politics moment is both
at the same time that Trump is trying to
reject the rule of law in many ways
actually is acting to keep him under
control it is undoubtedly our qualified
in the good thank you very much
[Applause]
Please follow and like us: