On Justice and the Rule of Law
Translated from Russian with the help of AI. Original: Russian version
When the state replaces the law with its own subjective notion of justice, the result is arbitrariness and chaos. A proper balance is achieved only when laws reflect principles of justice and are enforced objectively.
Justice, as you rightly noted, is often subjective. It rests on personal convictions, moral principles and ideas about what is right or wrong in a given situation. These ideas may differ depending on culture, upbringing and individual experience.
The rule of law, by contrast, rests on formalized rules enshrined in legislation. It exists to ensure order and stability in society. Laws are adopted through democratic or otherwise established procedures, which makes them a reflection of consensus or of the will of the majority.
The problem arises, however, when the state, as you mentioned, begins to interpret justice to suit its own interests and disregards the rule of law. This practice is dangerous because it:
-
Undermines trust in the legal system. If laws cease to be binding on everyone and are replaced by subjective interpretations of justice, people begin to doubt the fairness of the courts.
-
Leads to arbitrariness. Subjective justice can become a tool for justifying actions that violate the rights of particular groups or individuals.
-
Creates conflict between the minority and the majority. Even if something is "just" for the majority, it does not follow that it is just for everyone, especially when the rights of minorities are violated.
Is this just?
Most likely not. Justice that supplants the rule of law creates conditions for legal and social chaos. The ideal balance between justice and legality is achieved only when laws are adopted with principles of justice in mind, and their enforcement remains objective and independent of subjective interpretation.