However, the distinction may not be as clear-cut. Even the rule of law seems to imply that rulers accept something like the formal discipline of legality. If the orders issued by the State are not general, clear, forward-looking, public and relatively stable, the State does not govern by law. Thus, this slim version of legality still has moral significance in terms of the human need for clarity and predictability. The rule of law „can be a means for a government … stabilizes and ensures expectations” (Goodpaster 2003: 686). Although its use remains crucial to the needs of the state, it involves what Fuller called a reciprocal link with the purposes of those who are governed: the latter are assured that the proclaimed rules are those used to evaluate their actions (see also Winston 2005: 316). The Finnish Constitution explicitly requires the rule of law, stating that „the exercise of public powers shall be based on a law. In all public activities, the law must be strictly observed. » an independent and impartial judiciary; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay; a rational and proportionate approach to the sanction; a strong and independent legal profession; strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client; the equality of all before the law; These are all fundamental principles of the rule of law. As a result, arbitrary arrests; secret processes; indefinite detention without trial; cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; Intimidation or corruption in the electoral process is unacceptable. The rule of law is the foundation of a civilized society.
It creates a transparent, accessible and equal process for all. It ensures respect for principles that liberate and protect. The IBA calls on all countries to respect these fundamental principles. It also calls on its members to uphold the rule of law in their respective communities. As expressed, this seventh principle encompasses the notions of „institutional” and „decision-making” independence. Institutional independence describes the independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative branches.  Independence is the requirement that a judge decide a particular case solely on the basis of the law and the facts before him or her in the case.  Institutional independence and freedom of choice are essential for governance based on the rule of law. In France and Germany, the concepts of the rule of law correspond to the principles of constitutional primacy and protection of fundamental rights in the public sector (cf. public law), in particular the legislator.   The France was one of the early pioneers of rule of law ideas.
 The German interpretation is „more rigid” but similar to that of the France and the United Kingdom.   In any event, the freedom of one state is not as important a value as the freedom of one person. It is not clear that nation-states need to be protected by international law and the power it represents, just as ordinary men and women need to be protected from the exercise of political power in society. Moreover, in areas such as international human rights law, any presumption based on the rule of law in favour of the freedom of nation-States will tend to have negative effects on the freedom or well-being of men and women. We must therefore ensure that the invocation of the rule of law on the international scene does not undermine the values that this ideal seeks to safeguard within national regimes. An important aspect of rule of law initiatives is the study and analysis of the impact of the rule of law on economic development. The rule of law movement cannot succeed in countries with economies in transition and developing countries without an answer to the question: does the rule of law play a role in economic development or not?  Constitutional economy is the study of the compatibility of economic and financial decisions within existing constitutional frameworks, and such a framework includes public expenditures for the judiciary, which in many transition and developing countries is fully controlled by the executive. It is useful to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: corruption by the executive, as opposed to corruption by private actors. The substantive interpretation favoured by Dworkin, Laws and Allan asserts that the rule of law fundamentally protects some or all individual rights. Others argue that the rule of law has survived, but has been modified to allow directors to exercise their discretion.
For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law in this environment was a version of A. V. Diey: „No man is punishable or may be lawfully induced to suffer in body or property, except for a clear violation of the law established in the ordinary legal manner by the ordinary courts of the land. That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing an action before a court of general jurisdiction. As the routing bulletins of workers` compensation boards, public service boards and other agencies emerged, it soon became clear that this would overwhelm the courts and destroy the benefits of specialization that led to the creation of administrative bodies if judges decided all the facts themselves in a dispute (e.g., , extent of injury in a workers` compensation case). Even Charles Evans Hughes, a chief justice of the United States, believed, „You must have an administration, and you must have an administration by administrative officials.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If the trustees applied procedures that more or less followed the „ordinary legal manner” of the courts, there was no need for the „ordinary courts of the country” to examine the facts further. This means that if you had your „day on order”, the rule of law did not require another „day in court”.