Fundamentals

Generality of the Law: What It Means and Why It Matters

By Daniel Sardá · Published on June 07, 2026

6 min read1,255 words

The generality of the law requires rules aimed at open categories of people and situations, not privileges or punishments designed for one case.

The generality of the law is the quality by which a rule is addressed to categories of people or situations, rather than ordering a consequence exclusively for an identified person or for a closed case.

A rule that sets a speed limit for every driver on a certain road is general. A law created to punish a specifically named person is not, even if it was approved through the ordinary legislative procedure.

Generality does not mean that every law must apply to the entire population. A regulation may refer only to taxpayers, employers, doctors, or drivers and still be general, as long as it defines an open category through relevant criteria and not as a disguise to favor or harm identifiable individuals.

Key idea: a law is general when it sets a rule for a class of addressees or cases, not when it fabricates a tailor-made solution for a proper name.

What it means for a law to be general

Generality mainly answers one question: who is the rule addressed to?

According to the Diccionario panhispánico del español jurídico, a general law is addressed to citizens without referring particularly to some of them or to specific situations. In practical terms, it identifies its addressees through conditions that anyone could meet: driving, hiring workers, earning income, or practicing a certain profession.

This makes it possible for the rule to apply every time a member of the defined category appears. The legislator does not need to know that person’s identity in advance. The rule exists before the case and can be used to resolve comparable future cases.

For example, these rules have a general form:

• Anyone who exceeds a certain speed receives the same legal consequence.
• Whoever meets public, objective requirements may apply for a license.
• Every company in a given sector must comply with a common obligation.

By contrast, a rule loses generality when it grants a privilege to an identifiable beneficiary, imposes a penalty on a named person, or designs an artificial category that can reach only a subject already selected.

Generality is not the same as abstraction

Generality and abstraction often appear together, but they describe different aspects of a rule.

Generality looks at the addressees: the rule is formulated for a class of people, not for particular individuals. Abstraction looks at the regulated hypothesis: it describes a type of situation that can recur, not a single, already individualized event.

A rule that establishes what happens when any driver exceeds a limit combines both qualities. It is general because it applies to an open category of drivers, and abstract because it regulates conduct that can happen many times.

The distinction helps explain so-called singular laws. Some are addressed to a single addressee; others resolve a concrete case and exhaust their effects there. They are exceptions to the usual way legislation is written, but that does not make them automatically invalid in every legal system. Their justification and controls depend on the applicable legal order.

It is not the same as universality or impersonality

A general law does not have to impose exactly the same rule on every resident. Laws distinguish categories because activities and situations are also different. An obligation for employers does not cease to be general because it does not apply to people who do not hire workers.

What matters is that the category uses public, open, and purpose-related criteria. The more a classification looks designed to include or exclude people previously chosen, the weaker its claim to generality.

Impersonality expresses a nearby practical consequence: legal decision-making should not depend on a surname, political ties, or the ruler’s convenience. But avoiding proper names is not enough. An apparently neutral description can be drafted so narrowly that, in reality, it hides favoritism or persecution.

How it relates to equality before the law

Generality supports equality before the law, but the two ideas are not identical.

The first is a formal quality of the rule: it requires the rule to be framed for categories. Legal equality poses a broader evaluation: it asks whether differences in treatment are justified, whether the rule is applied consistently, and whether everyone receives equal protection.

That is why a law can be general and still be unjust or discriminatory. It can apply to all members of a category and still use an arbitrary classification or impose a disproportionate burden. General form makes some abuses harder, but it does not by itself guarantee the justice of the content.

The reverse is also true: treating truly different situations differently does not necessarily violate equality. The relevant question is whether there is a defensible legal reason for the distinction, not whether every rule uses exactly the same words for everyone.

Why generality limits arbitrariness

General rules help people anticipate the legal consequences of their decisions. If a rule is known before the case and applied to those who meet the same criteria, there is less room for authorities to improvise rewards or punishments according to convenience.

This quality is part of the rule of law: public power must act through rules that also bind its own decisions. An authority that can change the rule for each adversary, ally, or situation is not truly limited by it.

From a classical liberal perspective, generality matters precisely because it makes legal privilege and ad personam punishment harder. It also provides a more predictable framework for individuals and associations to organize their plans without constantly depending on political favor.

But the effect should be stated carefully. Generality reduces opportunities for arbitrariness; it does not eliminate them. The content of the rules, their publicity, stability, due process, the independence of controls, and the way authorities apply them also matter.

Can there be a law for a particular case?

Not every legal decision must be general. Court rulings resolve concrete disputes, and administrative acts apply rules to specific people or situations. That individualization is a normal part of law when it happens under prior rules and with safeguards.

The issue becomes more delicate when the legislature itself replaces a general rule with a law designed to resolve a single case directly. Some systems admit singular laws in exceptional circumstances, subject to sufficient justification and stronger controls. So it would be inaccurate to say that every singular law is necessarily unlawful.

The institutional risk appears when the exception becomes the method: privileges for allies, burdens tailored to adversaries, or legislative solutions that avoid ordinary procedures of application and review.

How to recognize the generality of a rule

To assess a rule, it helps to ask four questions:

• Does it define its addressees through an open, objective category?
• Did the rule exist before the case, or does it seem to have been created to resolve that case by design?
• Could it be applied coherently to future comparable cases?
• Does the distinction it uses serve the stated purpose, or does it conceal favoritism or persecution?

The generality of the law does not require ignoring all differences, nor does it promise just rules by definition. It requires something more concrete: that legislation operate through common criteria and not as a collection of personal orders.

That formal discipline makes law more predictable, strengthens legal equality, and limits discretionary power. It does not by itself complete the ideal of a free society, but it is one of the conditions that keep law from becoming a privilege for some and a particular threat to others.