最早闡述法治原理的當屬古希臘的伯拉圖和亞里士多德。前者在其《共和國》（中譯本為《理想國》但吾以為Republic應譯為《共和國》才更貼切準確）中說："在法律受制於其它某種權力而非它自身的地方，國家的崩潰即為期不遠了。但是如果法律是政府的主人及政府是法律的奴隸（政府完全受制於法律），那麼情形就充滿希望，人就能充分享受上帝對一個國家的保佑和祝福 "。[4] 他還論道："在法律本身受制於或缺乏至上權威之所，我看到此處面臨著破壞；但是在法律至高無上或統治者成為法律的奴隸之所，我預見到神賦予城市的安全和所有良好的事物"。[5]伯拉圖在《論法律》中進一步指出："人的統治或在政治社會中的人類至上應受到譴責，因為人性使得人擁有管理一切的專制獨裁權力時，完全不能控制人類避免變成自高自大傲慢無禮和不公不義。"[6] 伯拉圖確認法治乃"人類內心某種不朽"的理性或理解之治。[7]
亞里士多德認同法治，他寫道："法律應當統治"，那些"當權者應當成為法律的僕人" [8]。古代的法治概念有別於法制（用法律統治），"兩者的區別在於：在法治下，法律是超群的卓越的，並可以起到制約權力濫用的作用；而在法制下，法律僅能作為政府的一種合法方式鎮壓的工具"。伯拉圖的法治觀在亞里士多德解釋法治時有所反映："命令法律應當統治的人，可以被視為命令只有上帝和理性應當管制；命令某個人應當統治的人，增加了獸類的性質。各種慾望（高級靈魂亦然）具有此類獸性，即便是最好的人的慾望，也會使任職高官者變壞。因此，法律可以定義為：排除所有情慾或憤恨的理性"。[9] 亞里士多德認為"法治的和穩定的憲政是最佳的政府"，但此種憲政應當是建立在廣大中產階級基礎上的憲政。但他從未有過三權分立相互制約平衡的概念 [10]。亞氏之後，希臘羅馬歷史學家波里斯首次提出了政府機構分離的概念。他是介於亞氏與孟德斯鳩之間的人物。亞氏僅有階級平衡的概念，即在富人與窮人之間要有一個龐大的中產階級作為平衡。而孟氏則提出了完整的三權分立，限制政府權力，政府各部門之間制約平衡的政治設計[11]。
歸納伯拉圖和亞里士多德有關法治的論述，法治的基本精神與實質有：法律至上、法律應當統治、人治由於人性中的獸性最終必然導致不公不義專橫跋扈、國王統治者和政府均須受制於法律、法律源於至高無上的上帝及人類理性、權力必須限制。
在1215年《大憲章》中，英國約翰王將他自已和英國未來的王朝及地方法官均至少部分置於法治制約範圍內。[12] 約翰王向貴族男爵們承諾："非經貴族根據英國法律經合法審判，任何自由人不得被監禁、拘捕、驅逐、或以任何方式毀滅、也不得施加任何強制"。亦即皇權受到了極大限制，除非經由貴族按照法律公開審理，國王不得任意處罰任何自由人也不得限制任何人的自由。Bracton 法官大約在1250年在被視為英國法律第二份重要文件中重申"皇權必須按照法律行使。" [13]英王愛德華三世在1354年進一步規定："任何人，無論其身份地位如何，非經正當法律程序，並經法庭審理質證，不得被驅除出境或解除雇佃、拘留、監禁、剝奪繼承權、處死"。[14] 1608年愛德華庫克大法官對詹姆斯一世說：他"不是根據人而是依據上帝和法律"判案。[15]吉姆斯哈林頓於1656年（查理一世被處死後）獻給克倫威爾的《大洋國》中堅持："法律的而非人的王國。"[16] 英國是君主，貴族和民主的權力混和的體制，這三種權力相互平衡制約，從而保障了英國自由的憲政長盛不衰[17]。孟德斯鳩發現在英國既沒有政府機構之間的分權，也沒有社會階級平衡，該國是由擁有土地的領主組成的，充滿腐敗的議會部分行使管理職能。當然其立法與行政之間是分離的，但其分權未能超出司法獨立的範圍[18]。法治在英國發展成為共同法（通譯"普通法"，查布萊克法律詞典原義，顯然Common Law應譯為共同法而非普通法）的基本原則。其最基本的形式即為法律面前人人平等、公正和正義[19]。
上述英國的司法實踐確立了如下法治原則：法律至上、皇權受制於法律、自由人受法律同等保護、非經法院按既定法律和正當法律程序公開審理，任何人不得隨意被限制人身自由剝奪財產。
近現代政治法律思想家奠定法治理論原則基礎貢獻最大者當屬塞穆爾之《法論》（ Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex (1644) ）約翰絡克之《政府論》（1690）。隨後，孟德斯鳩在其《論法的精神》（1748）中進一步確立了法治原則。[20]
約翰絡克之分權制衡理論設計保障立法至上，將行政和司法置於其次地位，從而預期了依法治理："在一個憲政國家，只能有一個至上的權力，即立法權，其它一切權力都必須置於其下，因為能為他人制定法律者，必須高於那些被法律約束的人"。[21]用孟德斯鳩的話來說，"國家的法官們僅僅是宣讀法律詞彙的口，僅是被動使之不能節製法律的暴力或嚴厲"。[22]上述政治法律思想家最大的歷史功績在於確於了三權分立分權制衡的政治法律原則，使法治原則從理論變成了司法現實。孟氏對平衡政府權力的理論的獨創性貢獻在於他將三權嚴格分離[23]。法國大革命的法律理論認為：所有的法律都是立法者的意志，習慣法和司法解釋同樣被拒絕。法官僅是司法機器上的狹孔，通過類似數學公式那樣的一種自動計算機將法律文本適用於判決。[24]因此法國大革命實質上在某種意義上是一倒退。
司法獨立並非自始有之。英國大約是1616年正式確立獨立司法，普魯士（德國）在1749年首次提出司法獨立原則。[25] 1776年在締造美國的過程中，任何人均不得超越法律之上的概念得以流行，例如，托馬斯潘恩在其《常識》中稱："在美國法律就是國王。因為在一個絕對的政府中國王就是法律，因此，在自由的國家中，法律應當是國王；且不應當有任何其它更高的權威。"1780年美國第二任總統約翰亞當斯在馬薩諸色州憲法中建議："在馬州政府中立法、行政和司法權應當分置於不同的部門，旨在由法律而非由人統治。"[26]
法律的統治（rule of law法治）一詞是19世紀後半葉由英國牛津大學資深法學教授戴西使之流行的。[27]"西歐和北美取得的法治成就，付出過巨大的犧牲和代價，包括戰爭和革命，歷經數個世紀，並非在幾個月內或數年內成就"。[28]那些強調文明在構建世界秩序的作用的理論家們認為，"法治是西方獨特的產物而不能被出口 "。[29]
當代西方正宗自由憲政民主國家，均早已建立完善的法治。由於法律至上，法律普遍平等適用於一切公民，總統、政府與官員均受同等法律制約，從而"法律面前人人平等"，同時在社會、信仰、政治、經濟、文化、教育、文娛體育諸方面均做到人人機會均等成為可能。為創造一個相對公平公正公道的社會，一個人人自由、平等、友善、正義抑強扶弱的和諧社會奠定了堅實的法律基礎，個人權利則獲得法律的充分保障。
經過三波全球民主化，世界上已有130餘個國家實現了選舉民主政治。後起的民主國家中，由於法治原則在某些國家仍未確立或不完善，這是少數已實現選舉民主制的國家仍然存在司法嚴重不公政治腐敗的重要原因之一。至於中共匪幫騙子國，由於黨控一切的極權獨裁專制流氓暴政橫行霸道，極端自私自利的犯罪既得利益當權集團的頑固不化，與人民為敵的中共視法治為虎，始終依憑黨衛軍，及公、檢、法、司、警、特、監獄等國家暴力機器，對全民實行暴力、謊言、恐怖統治，長期實行嚴厲黨禁、報禁、言禁、網禁，使得中共國根本不存在獨立司法，獨立媒體，獨立政治實體，因而根本沒有法治生存的餘地，由於中共一貫殘酷迫害一切民主志士仁人，六十年強暴國人精神意志，長期強行對全體國人進行洗腦愚民，導致眾多民眾特別是官員們普遍道德墮落、人心敗壞、素質低劣，因此，中共暴政下，政治、司法、社會全面腐敗腐爛墮落是必然的。
唯有及時盡早徹底終結中共極權專制流氓暴政，才能避免中華民族被流氓中共毀滅的巨大危險，才能挽救中國的自然生態環境，才能拯救中國墮落的道德人心，中國才可能有美好的明天與光明的未來，中國人民才能真正走上自由人權法治憲政共和民主的光輝大道。每個真正愛華的中國人，每個中華兒女應當早日認清中共流氓暴政的邪惡本質，盡早唾棄早已病入膏肓無可救藥的中共流氓暴政，積極投身於徹底終結中共極權專制流氓暴政這一人類歷史上最偉大的政治革命，為建設一個真正自由人權法治憲政共和民主新中國而共同努力奮鬥。
2009年11月1日第191個反中共極權專制暴政爭自由人權民主絕食爭權抗暴民權運動日
[1] The idea of the rule of law (regulations) and not the man was proclaimed in the Western European legal and political theory a long time before the idea of democracy came into picture. In fact, the idea of the rule of law was taken over from Old Testament, and the thought became incorporated into the Western civilization through Christianity.
[2] The Rule of Law was not a cultural attribute common to the West, but rather it was local to England, a distinctive product of English history and legal institutions.
[3] The supremacy of law is not an exclusively western notion. For example, it was developed by Islamic jurists before the twelfth century, so that no official could claim to be above the law, not even the caliph.
[4] Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.
[5] . Laws IV 715d at 102. Where the law is itself ruled over and lacks sovereign authority, I see destruction at hand for such a place. But where it is despot over the rulers and the rulers are slaves of the law, there I foresee safety and all good things which the gods have given to cities
[6] Plato Laws IV 713c, The Laws of Plato. trans. Thomas L. Pangle Whicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) at 99. And see Laws IX, 875a-876a. In Plato's Laws personal rule or the supremacy of human beings in the political community is condemned because "human nature is not at all capable of regulating the human things, when it possesses autocratic authority over everything, without becoming swollen with insolence and injustice
[7] "...in public life and in private life-in the arrangement of our households and our cities should obey whatever within us partakes of immortality, giving the name *law' to the distribution ordained by intelligence." Laws IV 714a at 100. Plato identifies the rule of law with the rule of reason or understanding--"whatever within us partakes of immortality.
[8] Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that "law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of the laws." The ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."
[9] Aristotle, Politics In, 1287a in The Politics of Aristotle. trans. Ernest Barker (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962) at 146. Barker points out in a note that Aristotle here uses the language of Plato's Republic for the paris of the soul. Plato's voice can be heard in Aristotle's account of the rule of law: "He who commands that law should rule may thus be regarded as commanding that God and reason alone should rule; he who commands that a man should rule adds the character of the beast. Appetite has that character, and high spirit, too, perverts the holders of office, even when they are the best of men. Law ...may thus be defined as 'Reason free from all passion'
[10] For Aristotle the touchstones of good government are rule by law (so far as consistent with equity and administrative flexibility to cope with unforeseen situations) and constitutional stability. (6/26)
[11] there originates with Polybius the constitution of checking and balancing organs (not functions as yet). (6/26)
[12] In 1215 AD, a similar development occurred in England: King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates at least partially within the rule of law, by signing Magna Carta.
O. John Rogge * of the New York Bar (New York City).O. John Rogge， The,Rule of Law, 46 A.B.A. J. (1960) pages 981 to 986
[13] F. 5b. In 1215 in Magna Charta, King John promised his barons at Runnymede: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him, nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or [per legem terrae] by the law of the land." Bracton in his Tratatus de legibus, the second great treatise on English law, the main part of which was probably written between 1250-58, stated that the royal power should be exercised subject to the law
[14] 28Edw. 3. c. 3 (1354). Edward III (1327-77), in addition to his frequent confirmations of Magna Charta, in 1354 further provided "that no man of what estate or condition that he be, shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer [par due proces de lei] by due process of law
[15] Edward Coke in his famous Sunday morning conference (1608) with James I of England quoted himself as saying, attributing them to Bracton, NON SUB HOMINE SED SUB DEO ET LEGE [not under man but under God and the law]. Bracton was an English judge and writer who died in 1268.
[16] At 27 (Morley ed. 1887). James Harrington in his The Commonwealth of Oceana, published in 1656 after the execution of Charles I and dedicated to Oliver Cromwell, insisted on "an empire of laws, and not of men
[17] It is by this mixture of monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical power, blended together in one system, and by these three estates balancing one another, that our free constitution of government hath been preserved so long inviolate. (6/26)
[18] In England, where Montesquieu professed having found the doctrine in operation, there existed neither a separation of government organs nor a balance of social classes. The country was ruled, partly through a system of pervasive parliamentary corruption, by an oligarchy of land- owning peers. There was, to be sure, a distinction of functions between legislation, on the one hand, and executive action under the residues of the royal prerogative, on the other. A separation of powers, however, did not go farther than the independence of the judges, guaranteed by the Act of Settlement (1700). (6/26)
[19] the rule of law become a fundamental principle of the common law. in its most basic form the rule of law means eauality, fairness, and justice before the law. By Barrie J.Saxton & Ronald T.Stansfield, Understanding Criminal Offences, Carswell 1996.P.3. (6/22)
[20] Subsequently, two of the first modern authors to give the principle theoretical foundations were Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex (1644) and John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government (1690). Later, the principle was further entrenched by Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748).
[21] Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, ch. 12 §§ 149-50 (1685).)His separation of functions is plainly designed to guarantee the supremacy of the legislative, the rigorous sub- ordination of administration and judging, and hence predictable rule by law: "In a Constituted Commonwealth . . . there can be but one Supreme Power, which is the Legislative, -to which all the rest are and must be subordinate... For what can give Laws to another, must needs be superior to him."
[22] In Montesquieu's words, "The national judges are no more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law, mere passive beings incapable of moderating either its force or rigor. （11 Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois 6 (1748). Almost identically, see Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 866 (1824).）
[23] The only innovation he contributed to the mixed-government doctrine lies in the nature of the governmental balance, it is his rigid separation of the three powers, coupled with the unwarranted implication in which it is necessary for organs (powers) and functions to coincide. (6/26)
[24] the legal doctrine of the French Revolution. All law is legislative will. Customary law and judicial interpretation alike are rejected. The judge becomes a "juridical slot machine," a "subsumption automaton" calculating decisions from the legal texts by means of mathematic-like formulae. (7/1)
[25] The first steps toward judicial independence in Prussia were taken in the Judiciary Act (Justizressortreglement) of 1749, fathered by the natural law jurist, Samuel von Cocceji.
[26] 4 Charles Francis Adams The Works Of JOHN Adams 230 (1851). In the next century John Adams, in his The Report of a Constitution, or Form of Government, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, proposed: "In the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the legislative, executive and judicial power shall be placed in separate departments, Lo the end that it might be a government of laws, and not of men。 In 1776, the notion that no one is above the law was popular during the founding of the United States, for example in the pamphlet Common Sense by Thomas Paine: "in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish "a government of laws and not of men." (6/30)
[27] the specific phrase "the Rule of Law" was first popularized only in the last half of the nineteenth century by A.V. Dicey, Vinerian Professor of English law at Oxford from 1882 to 1909.
[28] Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order , 68-72 (1996). theorists who emphasize the role of civilizations in shaping world order suggest that the Rule of Law is uniquely Western and that it may not be "for export.
[29] Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order , 68-72 (1996).
