Fundamentals

Government of Laws: What It Means and Why It Limits Power

By Daniel Sardá · Published on June 07, 2026

6 min read1,176 words

A government of laws subjects citizens and authorities alike to public, general and reviewable rules rather than the personal will of whoever governs.

A government of laws is one in which power is exercised within public, general and reviewable rules. Those rules bind both citizens and authorities. A public official’s decision is not enough on its own: it must rest on a recognized competence, follow procedure and be open to review.

That is why the phrase is often summarized as government of laws, not of men. The formula does not mean that it is possible to govern without people. Legislators, judges and officials always interpret and apply rules. It means that their personal will should not be the ultimate source of authority.

Core idea: there is a government of laws when those who govern are also subject to legal limits and must justify the use of power.

Having laws is not enough

Every modern government produces rules. Even an arbitrary regime can govern through decrees, regulations and courts. The mere existence of legal texts therefore does not prove that there is a government of laws.

The difference appears when we ask what those rules do to power. Do they actually limit it, or do they only give legal form to decisions already made? Are they applied through general criteria, or can they be used to punish opponents and favor allies? Can a person challenge an official decision before an independent authority?

Imagine that two citizens apply for the same permit and meet the same requirements. In a government of laws, both should receive a response based on known criteria. If the administration rejects an application, it must explain why and provide some way to appeal. Under personal rule, the result may depend on connections, loyalty or the official’s preferences.

This is what distinguishes discretion from arbitrariness. Some public functions require weighing specific circumstances and choosing among several legitimate options. But that discretion must have limits, reasons and controls. Arbitrariness begins when power can decide without verifiable criteria or without answering for its decisions.

Government of laws versus government of men

The contrast with government of men points to impersonality. A general rule is not designed to benefit or harm one person in particular, but to deal with a class of situations. A person in authority should not be able to create an exception for himself or change the conditions after learning who will be affected.

That is why laws need to be:

• public, so that people can know them;
• relatively stable and predictable, so that people can guide their conduct;
• general and equal in application, without personal privileges;
• prospective as a rule, rather than retroactively punishing lawful conduct;
• subject to control, through procedures and independent authorities.

Secret, contradictory or constantly changing rules make it hard for anyone to know what they may do or how they can defend themselves. The Rule of Law: What It Means as a Limit on Power article explains that publicity, generality and stability are central features if law is to guide conduct, while also warning that formal compliance alone does not make every rule just.

Relation to the rule of law and constitutional order

Government of laws, rule of law and constitutional state are related concepts, but they are not always perfect synonyms.

The phrase government of laws communicates above all a contrast: power should operate through impersonal rules rather than the changing will of whoever holds office. The rule of law emphasizes the primacy of those rules and power’s subjection to them. The broader constitutional order includes the institutional framework that makes that principle real.

That framework includes authorities with defined powers, independent courts, due process, access to justice and mechanisms to control abuse. The United Nations defines the rule of law around the subjection of all persons and institutions, including the state itself, to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally applied and independently adjudicated.

In other words, a constitution or a law can announce very clear limits. But if no institution can compel compliance, the limit exists only on paper. Separation of powers, judicial review and the possibility of challenging official decisions help turn written rules into effective constraints.

What it requires in practice

A government of laws does not depend on a single institution. It requires a combination of rules and checks that reduce room for abuse.

First, authorities must act within powers that were established in advance. An agency cannot assume any power merely because it considers it convenient. Second, decisions affecting rights must follow known procedures and offer a reasonable chance to respond. Third, checks must be independent enough to review power without automatically obeying its orders.

The Venice Commission, in its rule-of-law assessment guide, brings together criteria such as legality, legal certainty, prevention of abuse of power, equality before the law and access to justice. It also emphasizes that administrative discretion needs limits and review. These criteria allow institutions to be evaluated in practice, beyond solemn declarations.

Equal application of the law matters especially. It does not mean ignoring relevant differences between cases. It means avoiding treatment that depends on favoritism or political identity. A law that binds citizens but leaves rulers free to ignore it denies the principle at its root.

Can there be unjust laws?

Yes. A rule can be public, general and stable and still violate rights or impose an unjustified burden. That is why legality does not automatically equal justice, legitimacy or freedom.

This objection does not invalidate government of laws; it shows its limits. General rules, procedures and controls reduce arbitrariness and make abuse harder, but they do not settle every moral or political question by themselves. The content of the law, the protection of rights and the possibility of reform through legitimate procedures also matter.

More regulation does not necessarily mean more government of laws either. A pile of confusing, incompatible or impossible rules can increase the discretion of whoever decides when to apply them. What matters is not the quantity of laws, but their ability to guide conduct and limit power.

Why it matters for liberty

From a classical liberal perspective, the value of government of laws lies in reducing dependence on another person’s will. When rules are known and power is limited, people can plan their lives, sign contracts, use their property and express disagreement with less fear of arbitrary decisions.

Legal certainty does not promise that nothing will ever change. It promises something more modest and essential: that changes will follow procedure, that authorities will have to give reasons and that there will be ways to challenge abuse. That predictability allows strangers to cooperate and make long-term decisions without needing the ruler’s favor.

A government of laws, then, is not a government without human judgment or an automatic guarantee of good laws. It is an order in which power must justify itself within public, equal and reviewable rules. A free society needs that principle because liberty is fragile when those who govern can create exceptions, impose sanctions or withdraw rights according to convenience.