Hague Journal on the Rule of Law

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 283–314 | Cite as

The Lions and the Greatest Part: the Rule of Law and the Constitution of Employer Power

Article

Abstract

On the limited government conception of the Rule of Law, it is axiomatic that the state may only act for the public good according to law, and not arbitrarily, on pain of forfeiting its authority. That axiom is a great legacy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’ anti-absolutist revolutions. The same period yielded another axiom, seldom noticed though nonetheless momentous. It is the belief, usually tacit, that the Rule of Law should not address the potentially arbitrary power of employers. This Article explores the origins of that axiom in the work of John Locke, one of the fountainheads of the limited government tradition. According to the way of seeing power that Locke propagated, there seems to be no reason to wonder whether the constitution of the modern employment relationship is hospitable to arbitrary power, in the limited government sense. Equally, there seems to be no point in asking whether the legitimacy of the employment relationship should depend upon its being constituted according to limited government constraints. However, as I demonstrate, such impressions are at odds with key moral and empirical features of Locke’s own analysis. Those tensions represent a challenge not only for Locke’s analysis, but also for the liberal Rule of Law project that Locke helped to found. It is a challenge that the tradition is yet to address.

Keywords

Rule of Law Legal philosophy Constitutional theory Employment law 

References

  1. Allan TRS (2003) Constitutional justice: a liberal theory of the rule of law. Oxford University, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan TRS (2013) The sovereignty of law: freedom, constitution and common law. Oxford University, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1Google Scholar
  4. Arendt H (1999) The human condition, 2nd edn. University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Avineri S (1968) The social and political thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge University, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berman HJ (1983) Law and revolution. Harvard University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhaskar R (2011) Reclaiming reality: a critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Blades LE (1967) Employment at Will vs. individual freedom: on limiting the abusive exercise of employer power. Columbia Law Rev 67:1404–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Board of Regents v Roth 408 US 564 (1972)Google Scholar
  10. Cohen J (1999) Structure, choice, and legitimacy: Locke’s theory of the State. In: Morris CW (ed) The social contract theorists: critical essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, pp 143–166Google Scholar
  11. Dworkin R (1985) A matter of principle. Harvard University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Dworkin R (1996) Freedom’s law: the moral reading of the American constitution. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Dworkin R (1998) Law’s empire. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Farr J (1986) “So vile and miserable an estate”: the problem of slavery in Locke’s political thought. Political Theory 14:263–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia v The Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1911) 5 CAR 9Google Scholar
  16. Finnis J (2011) Natural law and natural rights, 2nd edn. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuller L (c1969) The morality of law. Yale University, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodhart AL (1958) Rule of law and absolute sovereignty. U Pa L Rev 106:943–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamilton A (1788) The Federalist No. 84. In: Hamilton A, Madison J and Jay J. The Federalist: With letters of Brutus. In: Ball T (ed.) (2003), Cambridge texts in the history of political thought: The federalist: With letters of Brutus. Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayek FA (1960) The constitution of liberty. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones v Swansea City Council (1989) 3 All ER 162Google Scholar
  22. Kahn-Freund O (1949) Introduction. In: Renner K, Kahn Freund O (ed.) Schwarzschild O (trans) (1976) The institutions of private law and their social functions. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp 1–43Google Scholar
  23. Laws J (1997) Public law and employment law: Abuse of power. Public Law, p 455–466Google Scholar
  24. Locke J (1689a) An essay concerning human understanding. Nidditch PH (ed) (1975) Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Locke J (1689b). Two treatises of government. J Locke, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Macpherson CB (1962) The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford University, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Marx K (1894) Capital: a critique of political economy. Volume III. Fernbach D (trans) (1991). Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. McDowell GL (2010) The language of law and the foundations of American constitutionalism. Cambridge University, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Milsom SFC (1969) Historical foundations of the common law. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Pollock F (1922) Essays in the law. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Posner R (1983) The economics of justice. Harvard University, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Ripstein A (2009) Force and freedom: Kant’s legal and political philosophy. Harvard University, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sandel M (1998) Democracy’s discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Belknap Press of Harvard University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Schachtman v Dulles 225 F2d 938 (DC Cir 1955)Google Scholar
  35. Schuyler R (ed), (1960) Interpretation of Anglo-Saxon land books and charters. In: Frederic William Maitland historian: Selections from his writings. University of California, Berkeley, pp 145–172Google Scholar
  36. Sempill JA (forthcoming) Power & the law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Sempill JA (2016) Ruler’s sword, citizen’s shield: the rule of law & the constitution of power. J Law Politics 31:333–416Google Scholar
  38. Sidney A (1989) Discourses Concerning Government. Liberty Fund IncGoogle Scholar
  39. Skinner Q (1998) Liberty before liberalism. Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Strauss L (1952) On Locke’s doctrine of natural right 61 The philosophical review, p 475Google Scholar
  41. Taylor C (1989) Sources of the self: the making of the modern identity. Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 3) (2003) 2 AC 1Google Scholar
  43. Tully J (1980) A discourse on property: John Locke and his adversaries. Cambridge University, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Union Labor Hospital Association v Vance Redwood Lumber Co 158 Cal 551 (1910)Google Scholar
  45. Wade ECS (1961) Introduction. In: Dicey AV, Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution, 10th edn. Macmillan, London, pp. xix-cxcviiiGoogle Scholar
  46. Waldron J (1988) The right to private property. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Weber M (c1922) Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Roth G, Wittich C (eds), Fischoff E et al (trans) (1978). University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  48. Weiler PC (1990) Governing the workplace: the future of labor and employment law. Harvard University, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams Z (2014) The Guardian. England, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Wood N (1984) John Locke and agrarian capitalism. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  51. Wood EM (1995) Democracy against capitalism: renewing historical materialism. Cambridge University, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wood EM (2008) Citizens to lords: a social history of western political thought from antiquity to the late middle ages. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Young KG (2012) Constituting economic and social rights. Oxford University, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Law SchoolThe University of MelbourneCarltonAustralia

Personalised recommendations