romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials. The phrase can be traced back to 16th century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford used the phrase in his argument against the divine right of kings. The rule of law was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept, if not the phrase, was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote "Law should govern".

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Which Scottish theologian is first credited with using the phrase "rule of law"?
A: Samuel Rutherford', '
Q: Which British jurist later made the phrase "rule of law" popular in the 1800s?
A: A. V. Dicey', '
Q: What phrase Ariostle also use which is closely related to "the rule of law"?
A: Law should govern', '
Q: Samuel Rutherford used the principle of the rule of law to argue what point?
A: against the divine right of kings', '
Q: According to the rule of law, what should hold the determination for rules in a land? 
A: law']
Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. In this sense, it stands in contrast to an autocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law. Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and dictatorships, for example because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it. Government based upon the rule of law is called nomocracy.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In what forms of government are leaders not held to the same laws as ordinary citizens?
A: autocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy', '
Q: According to the rule of law, who must obey the laws?
A: every citizen', '
Q: What are governments called that are created with the rule of law in mind?
A: nomocracy', '
Q: What happens to the rule of law if a government does not have an effective system for maintenance and restoration?
A: decay', '
Q: For what reasons might democratic societies not follow the rule of law?
A: neglect or ignorance of the law']
In the West, the ancient Greeks initially regarded the best form of government as rule by the best men. Plato advocated a benevolent monarchy ruled by an idealized philosopher king, who was above the law. Plato nevertheless hoped that the best men would be good at respecting established laws, explaining that "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." More than Plato attempted to do, Aristotle flatly opposed letting the highest officials wield power beyond guarding and serving the laws. In other words, Aristotle advocated the rule of law:

Questions and answers:
['
Q: On what principle did the Ancient Greeks first think was best for governance? 
A: rule by the best men', '
Q: According to Plato, who was above the law?
A: king', '
Q: What type of kingdom was purported by Plato?
A: benevolent monarchy', '
Q: Under what rule did Aristotle believe a nation should be led?
A: rule of law', '
Q: To what did Plato compare a government that follows laws?
A: slave']
There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, there was some language in Deuteronomy imposing restrictions on the Jewish king, regarding such things as how many wives he could have, and how many horses he could own for his personal use. According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In which book of the Bible are limitations on Jewish monarchs outlined?
A: Deuteronomy', '
Q: Who was against the divine rights of kings in England during the 1500s?
A: Bishop John Ponet', '
Q: What principle did the restrictions on the right of kings, as detailed in Deuteronomy, influence later opposition?
A: divine right of kings', '
Q: What historical book may have a significant impact on contemporary law making practices?
A: Bible', '
Q: According to the restrictions placed on Jewish kings in Deuteronomy, ownership over what was regulated?
A: horses']
In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions (according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended, and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debed esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: To what did English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke compare the law?
A: golden met-wand', '
Q: According to English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, what should Kings follow?
A: God and the law', '
Q: When did English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke speak in the Case of Prohibitions?
A: 1607', '
Q: How did the king feel about what was said in the Case of Prohibitions?
A: greatly offended', "
Q: What was Edward Coke's official title?
A: Chief Justice Sir"]
Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is another word for a thin definition?
A: formalist', '
Q: What is another word for a thick definition?
A: substantive', '
Q: Who commonly, or at least attempt to, abide by the rule of law?
A: politicians, judges and academics', '
Q: On what do aspects of the rule of law do formalist definitions focus?
A: specific procedural attributes', '
Q: What is the third and lesser referred to approach on defining the rule of law?
A: functional']
Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: According to legal theorists, what characteristics must the rule of law have?
A: generality, equality, and certainty', '
Q: According to some, what is the rule of law is formed to protect?
A: individual rights', '
Q: What system of government is considered as a component of the rule of law?
A: democracy', '
Q: According to some legal theorists, for what are there no requirements for something to be considered a law?
A: content', '
Q: What are the two approaches to defining the concept of the rule of law?
A: formal and substantive']
The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Which interpretation of the rule of law is used on a larger scale?
A: formal', '
Q: According to the formalist approach, what else, besides democracy, can laws protect?
A: individual rights', '
Q: According to the formalist approach, how much notoriety must a law have?
A: well-known', '
Q: How many requirements for content are there for the rule of law under the formalist approach?
A: no requirements', '
Q: Which interpretation of the rule of law is less commonly used?
A: substantive']
The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man." According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: According to the functional interpretation, what principle is opposite of the rule of man?
A: rule of law', '
Q: What level of discretion do governments with a high degree of the "rule of law" have?
A: little', '
Q: What level of discretion do governments with a low degree of the "rule of law" have?
A: a great deal', '
Q: What happens to those that do not follow to the rule of law?
A: punishment', '
Q: What fights against the rule of law?
A: flexibility']
The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators, defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime or violence." Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than 200 countries, as seen in the map below. A government based on the rule of law can be called a "nomocracy", from the Greek nomos (law) and kratos (power or rule).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: For how many countries have rule of law aggregate measurements been developed?
A: more than 200 countries', '
Q: What is the term that described a government based on the rule of law?
A: nomocracy', '
Q: What is the Greek word for law?
A: nomos', '
Q: What is the Greek word for power?
A: kratos', '
Q: What is a key qualifier for determining good governance?
A: rule of law']
All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: According to the Constitution, what is superior to the rules of man?
A: rule of law', '
Q: What does the President and Supreme Court Justices vow to stand by?
A: the Constitution', '
Q: What do the President and Supreme Court justices vow to uphold?
A: the Constitution', '
Q: According to the Constitution, to what is the rule of law superior?
A: the rule of any human leader', '
Q: What branch of the government has prosecutorial discretion?
A: executive branch', '
Q: What branch of government can determine what acts it writes?
A: legislative branch', '
Q: Which branch of government has judicial discretion?
A: judicial branch']
Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who disagrees with the ideas proposed by John Harrison?
A: Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks', '
Q: For what body of principles is it debated whether or not it was constructed according to the rule of law?
A: U.S. Constitution', '
Q: According to John Harrison, through the Constitution, what is law?
A: that which is legally binding', '
Q: According to Frederick Mark Gedicks, who believed that unjust laws were not really laws?
A: the framers of the U.S. Constitution']
Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked "the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you had your "day in commission," the rule of law did not require a further "day in court." Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When was a compromise reached over administrative procedures for law determination?
A: 1941', '
Q: Who can determine if a law should be approached differently?
A: administrators', '
Q: Who should be able to challenge administrative orders in court?
A: individuals', '
Q: Who was Charles Evans Hughes?
A: a Chief Justice of the United States']
James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When was the Philadelphia Convention?
A: 1787', '
Q: Who spoke at the Philadelphia Convention about the potential chaos from not having judges be able to enforce laws?
A: James Wilson', "
Q: What was John Marshall's title?
A: Chief Justice", '
Q: What did George Mason state that judges could do to a law?
A: declare an unconstitutional law void']
East Asian cultures are influenced by two schools of thought, Confucianism, which advocated good governance as rule by leaders who are benevolent and virtuous, and Legalism, which advocated strict adherence to law. The influence of one school of thought over the other has varied throughout the centuries. One study indicates that throughout East Asia, only South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong have societies that are robustly committed to a law-bound state. According to Awzar Thi, a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, the rule of law in Thailand, Cambodia, and most of Asia is weak or nonexistent:

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What East Asian philosophy emphasized virtuous leadership? 
A: Confucianism', '
Q: What East Asian philosophy emphasized unwavering rule following?
A: Legalism', '
Q: How strong is the rule of law in most Asian countries?
A: weak or nonexistent', '
Q: Which Asian countries strictly follow laws?
A: South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong']
In countries such as China and Vietnam, the transition to a market economy has been a major factor in a move toward the rule of law, because a rule of law is important to foreign investors and to economic development. It remains unclear whether the rule of law in countries like China and Vietnam will be limited to commercial matters or will spill into other areas as well, and if so whether that spillover will enhance prospects for related values such as democracy and human rights. The rule of law in China has been widely discussed and debated by both legal scholars and politicians in China.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Which two Asian countries have started to adopt the rule of law?
A: China and Vietnam', '
Q: What has influenced China and Vietnam to conform to the rule of law?
A: the transition to a market economy', '
Q: Who is debating the reliance on the rule of law in China?
A: legal scholars and politicians', "
Q: To whom is the rule of law important to in China's trade deals?
A: foreign investors", '
Q: What values might adherence to the rule of law subsequently influence in China?
A: democracy and human rights']
In Thailand, a kingdom that has had a constitution since the initial attempt to overthrow the absolute monarchy system in 1932, the rule of law has been more of a principle than actual practice.[citation needed] Ancient prejudices and political bias have been present in the three branches of government with each of their foundings, and justice has been processed formally according to the law but in fact more closely aligned with royalist principles that are still advocated in the 21st century.[citation needed] In November 2013, Thailand faced still further threats to the rule of law when the executive branch rejected a supreme court decision over how to select senators.[citation needed]

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Where has the rule of law been more of a theory than a way of life? 
A: Thailand', '
Q: In Thailand, what branch of government rejected a proposal for senator selection?
A: executive branch', '
Q: According to what principles are most laws in Thailand decided?
A: royalist', '
Q: When did Thailand first try to overthrow its government run by a king?
A: 1932', '
Q: What harms the adherence to the Constitution in Thailand?
A: Ancient prejudices and political bias']
In India, the longest constitutional text in the history of the world has governed that country since 1950. Although the Constitution of India may have been intended to provide details that would limit the opportunity for judicial discretion, the more text there is in a constitution the greater opportunity the judiciary may have to exercise judicial review. According to Indian journalist Harish Khare, "The rule of law or rather the Constitution [is] in danger of being supplanted by the rule of judges."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What country has the longest version of a constitution?
A: India', "
Q: In what year was India's constitution drafted?
A: 1950", '
Q: What country has the longest Constitution?
A: India', '
Q: In Thailand, the length of the constitution impacts the judges chances to exercise what?
A: judicial review', '
Q: What is in position to gain control over the rule of law in Thailand?
A: rule of judges']
In 1959, an international gathering of over 185 judges, lawyers, and law professors from 53 countries, meeting in New Delhi and speaking as the International Commission of Jurists, made a declaration as to the fundamental principle of the rule of law. This was the Declaration of Delhi. They declared that the rule of law implies certain rights and freedoms, that it implies an independent judiciary, and that it implies social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity. The Declaration of Delhi did not, however, suggest that the rule of law requires legislative power to be subject to judicial review.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did the Declaration of Delhi happen?
A: 1959', '
Q: How many judges participated in the Declaration of Delhi?
A: 185', '
Q: According to the Declaration of Delhi, what provides certain rights and freedoms?
A: rule of law', '
Q: According to the Declaration of Delhi, what type of conditions are needed for human dignity?
A: social, economic and cultural']
The General Assembly has considered rule of law as an agenda item since 1992, with renewed interest since 2006 and has adopted resolutions at its last three sessions. The Security Council has held a number of thematic debates on the rule of law, and adopted resolutions emphasizing the importance of these issues in the context of women, peace and security, children in armed conflict, and the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The Peacebuilding Commission has also regularly addressed rule of law issues with respect to countries on its agenda. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action also requires the rule of law be included in human rights education.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When the rule of law become an agenda item for the General Assembly?
A: 1992', '
Q: What organization debates the rule of law?
A: The Security Council', '
Q: What organization meets to discuss and determine the countries that are considered by the rule of law?
A: The Peacebuilding Commission', '
Q: What do the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action require the rule of law to be used in?
A: human rights education', '
Q: In what year was interest renewed in the rule of law within the General Assembly?
A: 2006']