The notion rule of law signifies the protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found. Several centuries' back John Locke propounded that "wherever law ends, tyranny begins" and rule of law today just mirrors this sentiment. Generally speaking for the prevention of executive lawlessness, rule of law demands that every executive action must have the sanction of law.

The importance of rule of law is highlighted by the need for an orderly society that is devoid of anarchy. Way back in 1885 itself A.V. Dicey found out that one of the two principles of unwritten British Constitution is the rule of law2.

Two general types of Rule of law-thin and thick are identified.
The a "thin" notion envisages procedural restraints in the governmental conduct and in the exercise of sovereign power and, a "thick" conception comprises the "good", "right", and "just" theories). Though the concept of rule of law has been freely invoked and applied by judges, the exact meaning of the expression has not been satisfactorily explained4 and the extreme difficulty of formulating a succinct and accurate definition of rule of law has been recognized .

The 21st century is generally known as an era of liberalization, privatization, globalization and scientific technological developments. In the 21s' century human rights has become a house hold name and it has become the ethics of Governance of today's welfare state. Every Governmental action today including the executive actions has to necessarily pass not only through the rule of law test but also the human rights test. The human rights approach has given new dimensions and impetus to many old and persisting problems and thus rule of law concept too can benefit.

Reading rule of law into human rights and the vice versa could be beneficial to both the legal concepts that cry for their earnest implementation that too in the era of globalization wherein there is every possibility of the world becoming more and more materialistic?. Accordingly, in this short paper an attempt is made to explore the relationship between human rights and rule of law.

Rule of Law
Generally speaking rule of law suggests that laws and not men should govern and that too in a fair and just manner. It may profess government of laws, supremacy of the law and equality of all before the law. In spite of the elusive nature of its definition, the idea of rule of law may require that the law should be known, just and enforceable.

In other words from the thin conception point of view rule of law may caution that law must avoid at least the eight routes of disaster as suggested by Lon Fullerhead and shoulders above all his contemporaries and a model teacher and researcher to the younger generation. for this reason it has been it has been characterized as "an unruly horse"6.

The 21st century is generally known as an era of liberalization, privatization, globalization and scientific technological developments. In the 21s' century human rights has become a house hold name and it has become the ethics of Governance of today's welfare state. Every Governmental action today including the executive actions has to necessarily pass not only through the rule of law test but also the human rights test. The human rights approach has given new dimensions and impetus to many old and persisting problems and thus rule of law concept too can benefit.

Reading rule of law into human rights and the vice versa could be beneficial to both the legal concepts that cry for their earnest implementation that too in the era of globalization wherein there is every possibility of the world becoming more and more materialistic?. Accordingly, in this short paper an attempt is made to explore the relationship between human rights and rule of law. Rule of Law

Generally speaking rule of law suggests that laws and not men should govern and that too in a fair and just manner. It may profess government of laws, supremacy of the law and equality of all before the law. In spite of the elusive nature of its definition, the idea of rule of law may require that the law should be known, just and enforceable.

In other words from the thin conception point of view rule of law may caution that law must avoid at least the eight routes of disaster as suggested by Lon Fuller and from thick notion point of view rule of law may demand political will and institutional set up for the effective functioning of law'l. It is of interest to note that after Maneka's decision now the law that prescribes procedure under Art 21 should be "fair, just and reasonable"!2.

Rule of law thus not only warrants the mere existence of law but also the content and quality of it, i.e. what it means is 'good laws'. In nut shell what rule of law means is government based on principles of law and not of men; it is opposed to arbitrary powers; declares that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced before hand; and mandates the existence of rules and its knowledge so as to plan one's own individual affairs on the basis of that knowledge. Rule of law serves as basis of judicial review of administrative action and it is a basic structure in India!3.

The elements of rule of law are abhorrence of arbitrary power, equality before law, formal and rational court system and separation of powers and independence of judiciary.

There are could be several reasons positive and genuine also to believe, to be excited and to be proud that human rights concept has come of age over the years. However, the real issue that dangerously revolves around human rights of today is in its implementation or its protection. If we look back the history of human rights, at every stage of evolution, human rights faced different kinds of challenges.

The birth was painful, the growth was struggled one; had to face stiff challenges and theoretical divisions for its survival. In spite of enthronement of human rights, human rights had to face different challenges at different periods of its evolution. Today in the era of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG) human rights is forced to face several new challenges for its effective implementation and realization. One such problem is the Universalisation of human rights though Internationalization of it was possible.

The international community, thanks to World War II, had witnessed some of the worst examples of the violation of human rights known to history. Indeed one of the causes of Second World War had been the cynical violation of most fundamental human rights by a government, which had made this as its public policy.

For it was fostered the climate of world opinion which made it possible to redefine human rights and for the framers of UN Charter to make the promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms "for all without distinction as to race, sex, language and religion" as one of the pillars on which the UN was erected and as a stated purpose of the Organization's There are seven special references in the Charter to human rights and freedoms but nowhere does it catalogue or define them. However, the task of drafting the Bill of Human Rights was entrusted to the Commission Rights contemplated by Art 68 of the Charter.

On Human The first regular session of the Commission on 27 January 1947, met in an atmosphere of increasing East-West tension. Its first business was to make arrangements for the drafting of International Bill of Rights which, it later decided, would have three parts: a declaration, a convention, and measures of implementation that shall be embodied in texts of the covenants.

The first part of this International Bill of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly in the form of a resolution as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948. The remaining parts viz the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession on December 16, 1966. The two Covenants were adopted unanimously, the optional protocol by majority vote.

By drafting International Bill of Rights. international obligations such as to maintain defined human rights standard and to promote human rights within their municipal spheres are thus imposed on states.

Again human rights had to face a peculiar problem. States evidency are not hostile to human rights but they earnestly demand that authony for its implementation should be left to them. This demand in effect hampered the implementation of human rights.

This difficulty to some extent has been overcome by adopting the "sectoral" approach for the implementation of human rights . Wherever, implementation of human rights by one method was not possible, sector wise implementation of human rights was opted for.

Under this approach an attempt to reach consensus with respect to one particular type of human right is made. Thus, under the auspicious of Human Rights Commission, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Committee and the Council, many sector vise binding international instruments were created15.

Universalisation of human rights also created another problem. Based on their national priorities and their traditional understandings of the concept, the protection and implementation of human rights differed from one group of states to another. To overcome this problem only the regional approach is now preferred.

Parallel to the international system of protection for human rights, which has been setup within the UN frame work, there are many regional instruments which are effective in various parts of the world! 6.

Thus, in spite of the global common concern for the protection of human rights the claim for universality of human rights has been side lined by the different ideological, religious, economic and cultural perceptions of the various members of the international community.7. From this perspective only rule of law which enjoys at least to some extent wide acceptance among many communities may strengthen the human rights movement worldwide.

Rule of Law and Human Rights
In jurisprudence it is not uncommon that two different regimes or concepts can complement and strengthen each other and super imposition of one on the other can lead to better understanding and realization of the other or both. Accordingly, rule of law and human rights can also compliant and strengthen each other.

There are at least two approaches to understand the inter-relationship between rule of law and human rights. One is that rule of law is sine qua non for better realization of human rights.

Only in societies where rule of law is prevalent protection of human rights is possible. The other is that human rights concept forms the necessary component of rule of law and rule of law can be practiced where human rights are well recognized.

Interestingly the Universal Declaration on Human Rights categorically states in its Preamble that "human rights should be protected by the rule of law"18. As seen above the problem in the universal acceptance of human rights in spite of its internationalization posed a greater problem in the effective realization of human rights. The universal acceptance and recognition or the universality of rule of law could definitely contribute for the better understanding and realization of human rights''.

In the era of LPG for the global human rights agreement and results, rule of law could be the fruitful guiding principle and a touchstone for spreading the culture of human rights20. As rule of law is an essential component for democracy and good governance it can certainly act as a catalyst and hasten and help the implementation of human rights.

From the rule of law's thick notion point of view, rule of law as a dynamic concept takes within its ambit all human rights and the irreducible content of rule of law is a safety net of human rights protected by an independent legal system*22

Some of core components of rule of law have been recognized as human rights and because of this it is now possible to claim that rule of law itself is a human right.

There are at least three core ethical values with their new understanding and new human sensibility that have revolutionized the human right thinking and understanding. They are human dignity, nondiscrimination and development (human well being) – the three dimensions of human rights.

This revelation about human rights - that human rights concept now speaks of three Ds namely Dignity, Development and Non-discrimination23 has indeed fortified the position of rule of law. The non-discrimination or the equality principle has become the foundation on which rule of law can in fact stand firmly24. The claim that access to justice is now recognized as human right25 has also strengthened the rule of law concept.

Supreme Court very recently in Anita Kushwaha & Others vs Pushap Sudan & Others?" summed up the existing position as follows:
"Access to justice is and has been recognised as a part and parcel of right to life in India and in all civilized societies around the globe. The right is so basic and inalienable that no system of governance can possibly ignore its significance, leave alone afford to deny the same to its citizens.

The Magna Carta, the Universal Declaration of Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, the ancient Roman Jurisprudential maxim of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium', the development of fundamental principles of common law by judicial pronouncements of the Courts over centuries past have all contributed to the acceptance of access to justice as a basic and inalienable human right which all civilized societies and systems recognise and enforce".

Equality concept and access to justice (wherein setting up an adjudicatory mechanism has been found out to be the one of the most fundamental requirement of access to justice27) - the components of rule of law are the just two examples that have now been recognized as human rights there by it is now possible to accord human rights status to rule of law. Conclusion

It is well known that rule of law is an idea about law, justice and morality; it could mean rule according to law, rule under law and rule according to higher law28 and it enjoys universal recognition. It also well known that today human rights - whether civil, political or economic, cultural29; whether democracy and good governance it can certainly act as a catalyst and hasten and help the implementation of human rights. From the rule of law's thick notion point of view, rule of law as a dynamic concept takes within its ambit all human rights and 'the irreducible content of rule of law is a safety net of human rights protected by an independent legal system.

Some of core components of rule of law have been recognized as human rights and because of this it is now possible to claim that rule of law itself is a human right.

There are at least three core ethical values with their new understanding and new human sensibility that have revolutionized the human right thinking and understanding. They are human dignity, nondiscrimination and development (human well being) - the three dimensions of human rights.

This revelation about human rights - that human rights concept now speaks of three Ds namely Dignity, Development and Non-discrimination has indeed fortified the position of rule of law. The non-discrimination or the equality principle has become the foundation on which rule of law can in fact stand firmly24. The claim that access to justice is now recognized as human right?s has also strengthened the rule of law concept.

The Equality concept and access to justice (wherein setting up an adjudicatory mechanism has been found out to be the one of the most fundamental requirement of access to justice??) - the components of rule of law are the just two examples that have now been recognized as human rights there by it is now possible to accord human rights status to rule of law. Conclusion

It is well known that rule of law is an idea about law, justice and morality; it could mean rule according to law, rule under law and rule according to higher law28 and it enjoys universal recognition. It also well known that today human rights - whether civil, political first30, second3l or third generation 32 - enjoy wider recognition In spite of their wider recognition both suffer from some theoretical shortcomings that have practical implications. Exploring their complex relationship would indeed help us overcome these shortcomings that act as hurdles for their better realization.

For the realization of human rights, universal recognition human rights reflected in good laws guaranteeing them and enforced through independent and impartial judiciary is necessary. It is now realized that only in an atmosphere where there is political will (democracy), independent efficient court system (independence of judiciary) that enforce good laws (fair, just and reasonable) without any discrimination (equality principle) human rights can be effectively enforced or implemented.

Since universally accepted rule of law demands through both thin and thick notions, democracy, independent judiciary and good laws it can certainly push human rights to scale newer heights by strengthening the universal recognition of it and pave way for globally acceptable human rights standards

1. The fundamental human rights that are covered under the US Declaration of Independence 1776 and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789 which confer the individuals Civil and Political Rights generally called as the First Generation human rights. The First Generation Human Rights deals with individuals and positive rights conferred on them. Today we nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 . I Mexican Revolution gave rise to different litical and civil as well as Similarly, due its theoretical short comings little defined and understood rule of law may benefit because some of the components of rule of law have been recognized as human rights that enjoy higher recognition.
    
2. Rule of law and human rights both are desirable. The role of rule of law in strengthening human rights and the role of human rights in shaping rule of law are much more desirable especially in the era of LPG where everything has become materialistic. The better understanding of their relationship, it is believed, will certainly help us to march forward towards the much desired and lofty ideals of egalitarian and welfare society.
    

Relationship between Rule of Law and Human Rights:
The relationship between law and rights is a complex and multifaceted one that lies at the heart of modern legal and political systems. Both concepts are integral to the functioning of societies, and their interplay shapes the social contract that underpins democratic societies around the world.

At its core, law is a set of rules and regulations that govern human behavior within a society. These rules are established by a governing authority, such as a government or legislature, and are enforced through various mechanisms, including the judiciary and law enforcement agencies. The primary purpose of law is to maintain order, protect individual and collective interests, and ensure justice. In doing so, it creates a framework for resolving disputes and conflicts among individuals and groups within a society.

Rights, on the other hand, are the individual and collective entitlements and freedoms that people possess by virtue of their status as human beings or citizens of a particular state. These rights are often enshrined in legal documents such as constitutions, bills of rights, and international treaties. They encompass a wide range of liberties and protections, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial, and the right to privacy. Rights are not granted by the state or any external authority; rather, they are recognized and protected by the law.

The relationship between law and rights is symbiotic and interdependent. Laws are the means through which rights are recognized, defined, and safeguarded. Without a legal framework, rights would remain abstract concepts without any practical application or protection. For example, the right to free speech is only meaningful because it is codified in law and can be invoked to challenge censorship or persecution.

Conversely, rights play a crucial role in shaping the content and scope of the law. Legal systems often evolve to reflect changing societal values and norms, as well as to address injustices and inequalities. This evolution is driven by demands for the recognition and protection of new rights or the expansion of existing ones. For instance, the civil rights movement in the United States led to legal changes that abolished racial segregation and discrimination, thus expanding the rights of African Americans.

Furthermore, the enforcement of rights often relies on legal mechanisms. When an individual believes their rights have been violated, they can turn to the legal system for redress. This may involve filing a lawsuit, seeking a court injunction, or challenging a law's constitutionality. The legal system, in turn, provides a forum for resolving disputes over rights and ensuring that individuals receive due process and fair treatment.

However, the relationship between law and rights is not without tensions and conflicts. Legal systems can be used to curtail or infringe upon rights, often in the name of national security, public order, or other compelling state interests. Striking the right balance between the protection of individual rights and the need for societal order and security is an ongoing challenge in democratic societies.

Conclusion
The relationship between law and rights is a dynamic and essential one that defines the functioning of modern societies. Law provides the framework for recognizing, defining, and safeguarding rights, while rights shape the content and evolution of the law.

This interplay is crucial in upholding the principles of justice, liberty, and equality upon which democratic societies are built. It is a relationship that reflects the ongoing struggle to reconcile individual freedoms with the collective needs of society, and it continues to evolve in response to changing social, political, and technological landscapes.

References:

1. Walter Hallstein, Die Europäische Gemeinschaft, 5th edn (Econ Verlag, 1979), p. 53. In the text: 'Die Majestät des Rechts soll schaffen, was Blut und Eisen in Jahrhunderten nicht vermochten'.
2. Edward M. Harris, 'Antigone the Lawyer, or the Ambiguities of Nomos' in Edward Harris and Lene Rubinstein (eds), The Law and Courts in Ancient Greece (2004), p. 19, quoted in Christopher May, 'The Rule of Law: Athenian Antecedents to Contemporary Debates' (2012) 4 Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 235, at 240.
3. Ibid. 240.
4. Aristotle, Politics: A Treaties on Government, Book III, ch. XI, pp. 1286a–1288b (translated from the Greek of Aristotle and with an introduction, notes and glossary by Carnes Lord, University of Chicago Press, 2013), pp. 90–6.

Written By: Dr. A. David Ambrose