Talk:Rechtsstaat

message: There is absolutely no sense in including that blurb about 1830s muslim thinking somehow having something to do with German constitutional thought, especially since the article itself cites the Rechtstaat concept as evolving in the 1830s itself...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.248.165 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim thinking? 

message: This article presents a very "thick" post-1945 version of the Rechtsstaat concept, laden with substantive political claims about human rights and so on, even down to insistently mistranslating Recht "law" as "justice" or even "justice and integrity". This may be the version of Rechtsstaat seen as correct in Germany today and it may even be correct in some kind of normative sense. But it gives a deeply misleading impression of the actual historical development of the Rechtsstaat concept, a concept which is essentially contested. 
Basically, it's never been clear whether Rechtsstaat implies a full-bore liberal order with hard limits on state power imposed by prior, higher normative principles of justice (the line taken in this article) or the much more limited concept under the influence of legal positivism whereby a Rechtsstaat is simply a state which binds itself, in advance, to act in a predictable way according to certain procedural rules which may or may not have anything to do with human rights, equity, etc. Historically, at least prior to 1945, this "thin" or "right-wing" version of Rechtsstaat has been much more important than the elaborated, somewhat ahistorical "state of justice and integrity" version presented here.
The right-wing liberal order of the Bismarckian Second Reich conformed to the "thin" version but not the "thick" one; other examples are to be found in modern Asian states with "high quality authoritarian governance" such as the PRC and Singapore today, and formerly Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. This conception of Rechtsstaat has nothing to say against authoritarianism and oppression as such and may even enable it (Carl Schmitt was a Rechtsstaat theorist and even many of the Nazi atrocities, though certainly not all, were formally legalized in advance and thus basically conformed to the right-wing understanding of Rechsstaat.)
It needs fixed but I don't necessarily have the background knowledge to do the whole job myself. TiC (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article misleads that modern liberal "thick" ''Rechtsstaat'' interpretation = ''Rechtsstaat'' concept as such 

message: This article should be merged (or clearly separated) with rule of law which focus on the main point (this one is more about history). The fact that it was named Rechtsstaat is a detail. For this reason, the French article "état de droit" (which means "rule of law") point to this article but should point to rule of law. (Idem for other languages, probably)
I did not manage to find the way to change it. I send an incomprehensible error. 
"The link enwiki:Rule of law is already used by item Q44918. You may remove it from Q44918 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic."
What's is the item Q44918, where is it? Please wiki, makes it simple.
Nestashi (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms "Rechtsstaat" and "rule of law" do not mean the same:  they revert to different means of performing similar functions. See my contribution to "English term?" above.  The two ideas also have very different histories.  It is therefore appopriate to have separate articles.  Owing to the functional similarity, however, "see also" is appropriate both ways.  Wikiain (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion with "rule of law"  (the french article should also point to it)