最早阐述法治原理的当属古希腊的伯拉图和亚里士多德。前者在其《共和国》（中译本为《理想国》但吾以为Republic应译为《共和国》才更贴切准确）中说："在法律受制于其它某种权力而非它自身的地方，国家的崩溃即为期不远了。但是如果法律是政府的主人及政府是法律的奴隶（政府完全受制于法律），那么情形就充满希望，人就能充分享受上帝对一个国家的保佑和祝福 "。[4] 他还论道："在法律本身受制于或缺乏至上权威之所，我看到此处面临着破坏；但是在法律至高无上或统治者成为法律的奴隶之所，我预见到神赋予城市的安全和所有良好的事物"。[5]伯拉图在《论法律》中进一步指出："人的统治或在政治社会中的人类至上应受到谴责，因为人性使得人拥有管理一切的专制独裁权力时，完全不能控制人类避免变成自高自大傲慢无礼和不公不义。"[6] 伯拉图确认法治乃"人类内心某种不朽"的理性或理解之治。[7]
亚里士多德认同法治，他写道："法律应当统治"，那些"当权者应当成为法律的仆人" [8]。古代的法治概念有别于法制（用法律统治），"两者的区别在于：在法治下，法律是超群的卓越的，并可以起到制约权力滥用的作用；而在法制下，法律仅能作为政府的一种合法方式镇压的工具"。伯拉图的法治观在亚里士多德解释法治时有所反映："命令法律应当统治的人，可以被视为命令只有上帝和理性应当管制；命令某个人应当统治的人，增加了兽类的性质。各种欲望（高级灵魂亦然）具有此类兽性，即便是最好的人的欲望，也会使任职高官者变坏。因此，法律可以定义为：排除所有情欲或愤恨的理性"。[9] 亚里士多德认为"法治的和稳定的宪政是最佳的政府"，但此种宪政应当是建立在广大中产阶级基础上的宪政。但他从未有过三权分立相互制约平衡的概念 [10]。亚氏之后，希腊罗马历史学家波里斯首次提出了政府机构分离的概念。他是介于亚氏与孟德斯鸠之间的人物。亚氏仅有阶级平衡的概念，即在富人与穷人之间要有一个庞大的中产阶级作为平衡。而孟氏则提出了完整的三权分立，限制政府权力，政府各部门之间制约平衡的政治设计[11]。
归纳伯拉图和亚里士多德有关法治的论述，法治的基本精神与实质有：法律至上、法律应当统治、人治由于人性中的兽性最终必然导致不公不义专横跋扈、国王统治者和政府均须受制于法律、法律源于至高无上的上帝及人类理性、权力必须限制。
在1215年《大宪章》中，英国约翰王将他自已和英国未来的王朝及地方法官均至少部分置于法治制约范围内。[12] 约翰王向贵族男爵们承诺："非经贵族根据英国法律经合法审判，任何自由人不得被监禁、拘捕、驱逐、或以任何方式毁灭、也不得施加任何强制"。亦即皇权受到了极大限制，除非经由贵族按照法律公开审理，国王不得任意处罚任何自由人也不得限制任何人的自由。Bracton 法官大约在1250年在被视为英国法律第二份重要文件中重申"皇权必须按照法律行使。" [13]英王爱德华三世在1354年进一步规定："任何人，无论其身份地位如何，非经正当法律程序，并经法庭审理质证，不得被驱除出境或解除雇佃、拘留、监禁、剥夺继承权、处死"。[14] 1608年爱德华库克大法官对詹姆斯一世说：他"不是根据人而是依据上帝和法律"判案。[15]吉姆斯哈林顿于1656年（查理一世被处死后）献给克伦威尔的《大洋国》中坚持："法律的而非人的王国。"[16] 英国是君主，贵族和民主的权力混和的体制，这三种权力相互平衡制约，从而保障了英国自由的宪政长盛不衰[17]。孟德斯鸠发现在英国既没有政府机构之间的分权，也没有社会阶级平衡，该国是由拥有土地的领主组成的，充满腐败的议会部分行使管理职能。当然其立法与行政之间是分离的，但其分权未能超出司法独立的范围[18]。法治在英国发展成为共同法（通译"普通法"，查布莱克法律词典原义，显然Common Law应译为共同法而非普通法）的基本原则。其最基本的形式即为法律面前人人平等、公正和正义[19]。
上述英国的司法实践确立了如下法治原则：法律至上、皇权受制于法律、自由人受法律同等保护、非经法院按既定法律和正当法律程序公开审理，任何人不得随意被限制人身自由剥夺财产。
近现代政治法律思想家奠定法治理论原则基础贡献最大者当属塞穆尔之《法论》（ Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex (1644) ）约翰络克之《政府论》（1690）。随后，孟德斯鸠在其《论法的精神》（1748）中进一步确立了法治原则。[20]
约翰络克之分权制衡理论设计保障立法至上，将行政和司法置于其次地位，从而预期了依法治理："在一个宪政国家，只能有一个至上的权力，即立法权，其它一切权力都必须置于其下，因为能为他人制定法律者，必须高于那些被法律约束的人"。[21]用孟德斯鸠的话来说，"国家的法官们仅仅是宣读法律词汇的口，仅是被动使之不能节制法律的暴力或严厉"。[22]上述政治法律思想家最大的历史功绩在于确于了三权分立分权制衡的政治法律原则，使法治原则从理论变成了司法现实。孟氏对平衡政府权力的理论的独创性贡献在于他将三权严格分离[23]。法国大革命的法律理论认为：所有的法律都是立法者的意志，习惯法和司法解释同样被拒绝。法官仅是司法机器上的狭孔，通过类似数学公式那样的一种自动计算机将法律文本适用于判决。[24]因此法国大革命实质上在某种意义上是一倒退。
司法独立并非自始有之。英国大约是1616年正式确立独立司法，普鲁士（德国）在1749年首次提出司法独立原则。[25] 1776年在缔造美国的过程中，任何人均不得超越法律之上的概念得以流行，例如，托马斯潘恩在其《常识》中称："在美国法律就是国王。因为在一个绝对的政府中国王就是法律，因此，在自由的国家中，法律应当是国王；且不应当有任何其它更高的权威。"1780年美国第二任总统约翰亚当斯在马萨诸色州宪法中建议："在马州政府中立法、行政和司法权应当分置于不同的部门，旨在由法律而非由人统治。"[26]
法律的统治（rule of law法治）一词是19世纪后半叶由英国牛津大学资深法学教授戴西使之流行的。[27]"西欧和北美取得的法治成就，付出过巨大的牺牲和代价，包括战争和革命，历经数个世纪，并非在几个月内或数年内成就"。[28]那些强调文明在构建世界秩序的作用的理论家们认为，"法治是西方独特的产物而不能被出口 "。[29]
当代西方正宗自由宪政民主国家，均早已建立完善的法治。由于法律至上，法律普遍平等适用于一切公民，总统、政府与官员均受同等法律制约，从而"法律面前人人平等"，同时在社会、信仰、政治、经济、文化、教育、文娱体育诸方面均做到人人机会均等成为可能。为创造一个相对公平公正公道的社会，一个人人自由、平等、友善、正义抑强扶弱的和谐社会奠定了坚实的法律基础，个人权利则获得法律的充分保障。
经过三波全球民主化，世界上已有130余个国家实现了选举民主政治。后起的民主国家中，由于法治原则在某些国家仍未确立或不完善，这是少数已实现选举民主制的国家仍然存在司法严重不公政治腐败的重要原因之一。至于中共匪帮骗子国，由于党控一切的极权独裁专制流氓暴政横行霸道，极端自私自利的犯罪既得利益当权集团的顽固不化，与人民为敌的中共视法治为虎，始终依凭党卫军，及公、检、法、司、警、特、监狱等国家暴力机器，对全民实行暴力、谎言、恐怖统治，长期实行严厉党禁、报禁、言禁、网禁，使得中共国根本不存在独立司法，独立媒体，独立政治实体，因而根本没有法治生存的余地，由于中共一贯残酷迫害一切民主志士仁人，六十年强暴国人精神意志，长期强行对全体国人进行洗脑愚民，导致众多民众特别是官员们普遍道德堕落、人心败坏、素质低劣，因此，中共暴政下，政治、司法、社会全面腐败腐烂堕落是必然的。
唯有及时尽早彻底终结中共极权专制流氓暴政，才能避免中华民族被流氓中共毁灭的巨大危险，才能挽救中国的自然生态环境，才能拯救中国堕落的道德人心，中国才可能有美好的明天与光明的未来，中国人民才能真正走上自由人权法治宪政共和民主的光辉大道。每个真正爱华的中国人，每个中华儿女应当早日认清中共流氓暴政的邪恶本质，尽早唾弃早已病入膏肓无可救药的中共流氓暴政，积极投身于彻底终结中共极权专制流氓暴政这一人类历史上最伟大的政治革命，为建设一个真正自由人权法治宪政共和民主新中国而共同努力奋斗。
2009年11月1日第191个反中共极权专制暴政争自由人权民主绝食争权抗暴民权运动日
[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).
