Introduction
For Blandine Kriegel, the rule of law is not a technical model, but a civilizational project, at the heart of which lies the relationship between the individual and the community. Rejecting 20th-century reductionisms, the author focuses on its historical and legal foundations. Her ideal model rests on three pillars: the absolute value of the person, their rights, and institutional guarantees. Kriegel points out that these ideas were undermined by 19th-century collectivism, which paved the way for modern despotisms, making the defense of the rule of law a key cultural challenge.
Kriegel's Rule of Law: A Different Perspective
Kriegel's perspective is distinct, as she treats the rule of law as a civilizational project, not merely a formal construct. She poses a fundamental question: is the basis of the relationship between the individual and the community the inalienable value of the person, or the primacy of the collective? The answer defines the boundary between the civilization of law and despotism, where man becomes a cog in the machine, and power recreates the master-slave dynamic.
The ideal model of the rule of law rests on three pillars. The first is the personalist principle – the recognition of the absolute value of the individual. The second is its legal articulation in the form of subjective rights. The third consists of institutional guarantees of their effectiveness. These three elements form a coherent whole: the dignity of the person gives meaning, law provides form, and institutions ensure durability.
The Rule of Law: Three Pillars of the Ideal Model
The project of the rule of law emerges from the synthesis of three great Western traditions. The Greeks contributed the idea of a universal norm, and the Romans created the conceptual apparatus of law. However, the crucial contribution came from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which was the first to establish the idea of the inalienable value of the individual – not as a citizen, but as a person created in the image of God.
This value found expression in the doctrine of subjective rights. It was Hobbes, deriving them from the right to self-preservation, who gave the individual a shield against power. Later, liberty and property were added. These rights became a limit for the sovereign, and institutional guarantees – such as courts and procedures – transformed them into a real force. They replaced brutal force with the reason of institutions, realizing the principle: instead of blood – the letter of the law.
Romantic Anti-Statism Threatens the Civilization of Law
According to Kriegel, the greatest threat to the civilization of law became 19th-century Romanticism. Rejecting the rationalism of the Enlightenment, it replaced the state limited by law with a mystical vision of the nation and its "spirit" (Volksgeist). Law ceased to be a shield for the individual and became an expression of the collective will. This led to the de-juridification of political life, where the arbitrary opinion of the majority invalidates the legal norm.
The consequence of rejecting the rule of law is a return to archaic forms of domination. When the individual loses legal protection, they are absorbed by the collective – the nation, class, or party. Modern totalitarianisms, such as Nazism and Communism, appear in this analysis as a ghostly return to the master-slave relationship. The civilization of law gives way to the civilization of lawlessness.
Conclusion
In a world where security and identity become pretexts for limiting freedom, are we doomed to a repeat of history, where the letter of the law gives way to blood? Or perhaps, despite appearances, there lies within us a hidden capacity to create a community where difference is not a threat, but the foundation of a lasting and just order? Will the rule of law, though fragile and requiring constant defense, remain our only refuge from a return to the ancient forest, where the stronger always had the right?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF