Vladimir Putin: 'What is a Rechtsstaat? It is obedience to the existing law.'

What is a Rechtsstaat? It is obedience to the existing law.

In his statement, Vladimir Putin presents a concise and straightforward definition of a Rechtsstaat: obedience to the existing law. At first glance, this may appear to be a simple and logical interpretation. After all, a well-functioning society requires individuals to adhere to established laws in order to maintain order and stability. However, delving deeper into this concept, we can explore the complex relationship between obedience to the law and the underlying philosophical principles that define a Rechtsstaat.The term Rechtsstaat, originating from German jurisprudence, is commonly understood as meaning a state governed by the rule of law. In essence, it signifies a legal system in which the power of the government is limited by laws that are transparent, objective, and fair. By highlighting the importance of obedience to existing law, Putin draws attention to the fundamental pillar on which a Rechtsstaat is built.Yet, what happens when the existing law contradicts fundamental principles of justice? This is where a philosophical concept known as legal positivism presents itself as an interesting counterpoint. Legal positivism, championed by theorists such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, argues that the validity of law depends solely on its source, rather than its content. In other words, what makes a law legally binding is its creation through an appropriate legislative process. This perspective places emphasis on obedience to the law as a duty, regardless of its moral or ethical implications.By introducing legal positivism into the discussion, we find ourselves contemplating the delicate balance between obedience to the existing law and the pursuit of justice. While a Rechtsstaat upholds the importance of obedience, it is equally vital to consider the implications of blindly abiding by laws that may be flawed, discriminatory, or unjust. This raises the question: should individuals in a Rechtsstaat be complacent with laws that go against their fundamental understanding of fairness and equality?To explore this further, let us consider the historical struggle for civil rights and social justice. In many instances, legal systems have perpetuated discrimination and inequality. Obedience to such unjust laws would have perpetuated these oppressive systems, stifling progress and perpetuating social injustice. It is during these moments in history that we witness individuals challenging the status quo and advocating for change, even in defiance of the existing law.However, this is not to suggest that disobedience should be taken lightly, as laws serve a vital purpose in maintaining societal order. A Rechtsstaat seeks to strike a balance between obedience and reform, encouraging citizens to participate in the democratic process to effect change. It is through peaceful resistance, advocacy, and legal amendments that societies evolve. After all, a Rechtsstaat is not a static entity but a system that adapts to changing times, societal needs, and evolving moral standards.In conclusion, Vladimir Putin's definition of a Rechtsstaat as obedience to existing law offers a concise perspective that underscores the importance of order in a society governed by the rule of law. However, the philosophical concept of legal positivism challenges us to consider the concept of blind obedience and grapple with the question of whether an unjust law deserves full compliance. The complexities and tensions between obedience and the pursuit of justice in a Rechtsstaat make it a dynamic and evolving system driven by societal progress.