Law Without Order

After a protest by climate activists or a brawl at a public swimming pool, we regularly hear demands for the state to clamp down and “enforce the rule of law”. What this actually means is: enough of the excuses and the romanticism of social workers, it’s time for the police to step in, and for judges to lay down the law – in short, what we know as the doctrine of “law and order”.

 

What is often forgotten here is that the “rule of law” actually means something entirely different, namely the requirement of the state to adhere to the strictures of the law. Maximilian Pichl analyses the reasons why some political figures strategically deploy the doctrine of law and order, and also looks at the consequences this has. Pichl juxtaposes these efforts with the long history of legal struggles in which lawyers and activists have fought to place limits on the political misuse of the law.