Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics. For example, these theorists argue that the law requires generality (general rules that apply to classes of people and behaviors as opposed to individuals), publicity (no secret laws), prospective application (few or no retroactive laws), consistency (no contradictory laws), equality (equally applied throughout society), and certainty (certainty of application to a particular situation), but formalists claim that there are no requirements regarding the content of the law. Others, including some legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily implies the protection of the rights of the individual. In legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two fundamental alternatives, each referred to as the formal and substantive approach. Nevertheless, there are other points of view as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law.  In his 1964 book The Morality of Law, Fuller formulated principles of what he called “the inner morality of the law”—principles that require laws to be general, public, forward-looking, consistent, clear, stable, and practicable—and argued that these were essential to legislation. In the review of Fuller`s book, H.L.A. Hart (1965) asked in what sense these principles could be called “morality.” They were more like instrumental principles for effective legislation and, in Hart`s view, they were not as moral as the society they made possible. The extent to which the Company is bound by law engages in processes that ensure the guarantee of property rights according to legal rules that are applied in a predictable manner and are not subject to the whims of certain people. Commitment to such processes is the essence of the rule of law. Cass (2004:131) U.S. Military and U.S.
Army Doctrine The government`s Inter-Institutional Agreement (EPA) could consider the rule of law as a principle of governance. John Locke, in the second of his two Treaties of Government (1689), emphasized the importance of governance through “permanent laws established, promulgated, and known to the people.” He compared this to the rule by “exemporative arbitrary decrees” (Locke 1689: §§135-7). Now, the term “arbitrary” can mean many different things. Sometimes it means “oppressive.” But when Locke distinguished the rule of permanent laws from arbitrary decrees, it was not the oppressive feeling of “arbitrariness” he had in mind. In this context, something is arbitrary, because it is contemporary: there is no note of it; The sovereign simply discovers it as he progresses. It is the arbitrariness of the unpredictability of not knowing what to rely on to be subjugated, as Locke (1689: § 137) put it, someone`s sanctuary cities were deliberately designed to ignore the rule of law and undermine our legal immigration system. Beyond these generalities, what the rule of law requires is controversial. This is partly because the rule of law is a working political idea, both the property of ordinary citizens, lawyers, activists and politicians, as well as the lawyers and philosophers who study it. The characteristics to which ordinary people draw attention are not necessarily the characteristics that legal philosophers have emphasized in their academic conceptions. Legal philosophers tend to emphasize the formal elements of the rule of law, such as rule by general norms (not by specific decrees); govern by pre-established standards (not retrospective decrees); govern by standards made public (not hidden in the offices of the administration); and govern according to clear and specific legal norms (norms whose meaning is not so vague or questionable that those subject to them are at the mercy of official discretion). But that`s not necessarily what ordinary people have in mind when they call for the rule of law; They often think of the absence of corruption, the independence of the judiciary and a presumption in favour of freedom. These ideas claim to bring a certain touch of reality into our discussions about freedom.
In the circumstances of modern life, there may be no escape from legal constraints, but freedom is still possible if people know in advance how the law will work and how they should act to avoid its application. Knowing in advance how the law will work can make plans and circumvent its requirements (see Hayek 1960:153 and 156–7). And knowing that you can count on the protection of property and personal rights by law gives every citizen some certainty about what they can count on when dealing with other people. The rule of law is therefore violated when the standards applied by civil servants do not correspond to the standards made public to citizens, or when officials act on the basis of their own discretion and not on the basis of standards established in advance. If such action becomes endemic, not only will people`s expectations be disappointed, but they will be increasingly unable to form expectations they can rely on, and the horizons of their planning and economic activity will shrink as a result. The General Assembly has considered the rule of law to be an agenda item since 1992, with renewed interest since 2006, and has adopted resolutions at its last three sessions.  The Security Council has held a number of thematic debates on the rule of law and adopted resolutions highlighting the importance of these issues in the context of women, peace and security, children in armed conflict and the protection of civilians in armed conflict.  The Peacebuilding Commission has also regularly addressed rule of law issues with respect to the countries on the agenda.
 The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action also call for the integration of the rule of law into human rights education.  In addition, Sustainable Development Goal 16, which is part of the 2030 Agenda, aims to promote the rule of law at the national and international levels.  Aristotle`s work on the rule of law remains influential. Although he formulated the question of whether it was better to be governed by the best man or the best laws, he approached this question realistically, noting that it depended not only on the type of law envisaged, but also on the type of regime that had promulgated and administered the law in question (Politics 1282b). Various and countless ways of defining the rule of law are well known in the United States and may depend on the purpose of an organization, even in areas of security risk: The rule of law not only imposes such fundamental requirements on how the law should be enacted in society, but also implies certain qualities in terms of the characteristics and content of the laws themselves. In particular, laws must be open and clear, of general form, universally applicable and recognizable to all. In addition, legal requirements must be such that people can be guided by them; They must not impose unreasonable cognitive or behavioural demands on the people they are supposed to follow. Therefore, the law should be relatively stable and include certain requirements that people can consult before acting, and legal obligations should not be set retroactively. In addition, the law should remain internally consistent and, if not, provide legal means to resolve any contradictions that may arise.
Of course, the term “rule of law” can be invoked in a variety of situations. A simple Google search today shows that President Donald Trump`s cabinet is “undermining the rule of law”; than if Roe v. Wade is overthrown, “we should be concerned about the rule of law”; and that “Republicans for the Rule of Law” have shown their support for Rep Justin Amash, who has called for Trump`s impeachment. The idea that the rule of law is a foundation of how we act as a nation transcends ideological boundaries. The rule of law includes a set of formal and procedural principles that deal with how a community is governed. Formal principles concern the generality, clarity, publicity, stability and foresight of the standards that govern a society. Procedural principles concern the processes by which these standards are administered and institutions – such as the courts and an independent judiciary that requires their administration. In some cases, the rule of law also includes certain material ideals, such as the presumption of freedom and respect for private property rights. But these are much more controversial (see section 1 below). And indeed, as we will see, there is a lot of controversy about what the rule of law requires. In India, the longest constitutional text in the history of the world has governed this country since 1950. Although the Constitution of India may have been intended to provide details that would limit the possibility of judicial discretion, the more text there is in a constitution, the more likely it is that the judiciary will exercise judicial control.
 According to Indian journalist Harish Khare, “the rule of law, or rather the constitution, risks being replaced by the rule of judges.”  In addition to these debates about the value of the rule of law, there is an incessant controversy in the camp of those who defend legality over what the rule of law requires. I mentioned the general debates between advocates of formal, procedural and substantive concepts. There are also a number of special debates. Debating what the rule of law requires is partly the product of the fact that the law itself encompasses many things and people prefer different aspects of a legal system. For some, the common law is the epitome of legality; for others, the rule of law means the impartial application of a clearly formulated law; For others, the rule of law is the epitome of a stable constitution that has been anchored in a country`s politics for centuries. .