I don't duplicate the prior https://ell.stackexchange.com/q/32122/8712. There, I couldn't identify the unique correct definition. Here, I don't know how to choose between three disparate definitions, all of which can apply :

the Constitutional Reform Act (CRA) 2005 provides, in s 1, that the Act does not adversely affect
‘the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law’ or
‘the Lord Chancellor’s existing constitutional role in relation to that principle’.
...as Lord Bingham pointed out, the Act does not actually defi ne what is meant by the rule of law, or indeed the Lord Chancellor’s role in relation to it. He also recognised the difficulty in fixing a single meaning or in fact any substantive content to the principle, citing various different academic references to it...

Definition1. Having a firm basis in reality and so important
2. Having a separate and independent existence.
3. (Of law) defining rights and duties, as opposed to giving the procedural rules by which those rights and duties are enforced.

  1. This is a significant Act so it's important. Is Definition 1 the answer?
  2. Lord Bingham 'recognised the difficulty' of, separate definitions. Is 'separate' the meaning?
  3. This is about law so this also applies, but is Definition 3 the answer?

Source: p 30, The English Legal System 2012-2013, Gary Slapper

  • @snailplane Thanks. I tried to explain at the start why it's not a duplicate; does it help? – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Aug 24 '14 at 12:45
  • 1
    You should edit the other question to incorporate these definitions. I don't think this needs to be (nor should be) two separate questions. – J.R. Aug 25 '14 at 2:54
  • @J.R. Thanks. Would you please advise on your last sentence? Please see meta.ell.stackexchange.com/questions/1155/…. – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Aug 25 '14 at 7:31
  • I've already given my opinion; let's see what others say. – J.R. Aug 25 '14 at 11:46