INTRODUCTION

For some time now, we have been told that the rule of law is high on the international agenda for several reasons: it brings political stability and prompts economic growth, and it is also central to sustainable development and contributes to international peace and security. Working around the hypothesis of an international version of the concept, I suggested that ‘the “rule of law” is undoubtedly one of the most powerful expressions in the modern world. In a sense, it has become an activity in itself, a mental-social phenomenon which exists within human consciousness and acts independently within physical social realities, like a pat on the back or a slap in the face.’ Indeed, it can be argued that the rule of law has become a ‘buzzword’ (‘buzzphrase’) in legal theory and political studies. To borrow from Ogden and Richard's philosophy of language, the rule of law is a formulation of ‘hurrah!’ words; that is to say, words that provoke a good feeling in those who voice or hear them.

On the more cynical side, Carothers observed: ‘[o]ne cannot get through a foreign policy debate these days without someone proposing the rule of law as a solution to the world's troubles.’ The United Nations has fuelled such criticism in recent years, including in the context of post-conflict states and other situations of transition. Witness, inter alia, the 2004 UN Secretary-General's report on the rule of law and transitional justice, the outcome document of the 2005 UN World Summit, with a full section on the rule of law, and the uninterrupted string of resolutions by the UN General Assembly, from 2006 to 2010, all entitled ‘The Rule of Law at the National and International Levels’, as well as the creation of a rule of law unit in the Executive Office of the UN Secretary-General and the many reports by UN officials on the rule of law since 2006. In short, perhaps the rule of law has been a victim of its own success because, as we all know, too much of a good thing can be harmful.