Jeffrey Sachs, who authored a 1993 macroeconomics text with Felipe Larrain, continues to publish regularly. The book cites a study that finds an economy’s adherence to the rule of law can affect its growth. He is among various academics and leaders who refer to the principle.

Here are instances:

• As mentioned in the book, through comparing growth rates of 115 market economies over the period 1960-1980, Gerald Scully’s 1988 research shows that, “…societies…which subscribe to the rule of law, to private property, and to market allocation of resources, grow at three times the rate and are two and one-half times as efficient as societies in which these freedoms are abridged.”
• Sachs wrote on rule of law again in 1998:  “The challenges of creating a rule of law fit for global capitalism involve two levels of mystery: that of law at the level of the nation state, and that of international law fit for our global capitalist society.” 
• A copy of an Inauguration Day letter, from President Obama to President Trump, mentions the rule of law in association with democracy.
• Shortly after his inauguration, President Trump said, “We are going to restore the rule of law.” He invoked the notion in support of restrictive immigration policies.
• Sachs raised issues about the “International rule of law,” 30 years after Scully’s finding, in 2018, airing criticism toward US trade policy with China.

The term can be traced back in time with some effort. However who can certainly know who originated the phrase, when, and how its meaning may have changed? Sheldon Wolin’s Tocqueville Between Two Worlds describes the English philosopher John Locke’s system of umpirage, “Power would be made to conform to three essentials of the rule of law: a ‘settled, known law,’ a ‘known and indifferent judge,’ and an executive who would faithfully enforce the laws.”

The indicated source of the above is Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690). It would not be responsible to claim that the essentials are encompassing or beyond dispute, but implications may be clearer than those offered in correspondence and articles. For the system of umpirage to apply to the economist’s international society, separate nations would need the others to acknowledge and adhere to laws, accept a judge on those rules, and operate under the same executive enforcer. Perhaps all is achievable, maybe within the purview of the United Nations, eventually.

There can be issues at a national level. With a presidential impeachment inquiry underway in Congress, there is a possibility of the US Senate reaching a verdict on the matter after a future trial. Even if it is a mistake to describe each senator as a judge (Locke’s executive apparently is thought of as an attorney general by The Economist; as opposed to the president under Article II of the US Constitution), surely the Senate intends to uphold the rule of law? Unfortunately, Senator Markey is among congressmen publicly expressing views that can be described as prejudicial:

Enlisting a foreign power for his own political gain, President Trump continues to tear at the fabric of our democracy every day. #ImpeachTrump https://t.co/zNITp7ozhb

— Ed Markey (@EdMarkey) September 24, 2019

The senator is amidst a pitched battle, with three other members of his own Democratic Party, in order to once again defend his seat against all challengers in the general election. Evidently impartiality toward a hearing is not something he can afford, figuratively at least. He must feel that it is a low priority to his voters.

The rule of law has centuries of history. It is important. If social scientists, thinkers, or public officials reference it in the future, we can discuss its umpirage.