(Jainacharya Yugbhushansuri)
When the incumbent president of Venezuela was captured by President Trump, the world cried out regarding the breach of international law. Even the Pope voiced concern. We had an internal debate regarding this issue and whether it really amounted to a breach of law or was a result of international law. In general, today, any military extraterritorial action by a state, if not approved by the UN, is generally considered a breach of international law. My stand was that this arrest is in accordance with international law. My completely contradictory stand obviously requires justification, and the shortest possible justification is the Rule of Law.
After the incident, I was invited to Suryadutta University, Pune, for a session on the topic of the Rule of Justice. I elaborated on the above conclusion regarding how the capture is as per international law and how the culprit is the Rule of Law. The justification formed part of my address there and the key points of my address are described hereafter.
As humanity travelled through centuries, it observed multiple types of global orders or regional orders. But if viewed carefully, these orders fall in any of three broad categories. One is where disorder is the order or where jungle rule prevails. Second is where the rule of the law prevails. The third is where the Rule of Justice prevails. In this sankraman kaal, as we have the opportunity to design the future order, understanding the nature, promise, and failure of each is perhaps the most urgent intellectual exercise of our time.
The Rule of the Jungle
The rule of the jungle, as the name suggests, exists in the jungle. Power is the only currency. The strong dominate; the weak submit; and security is perpetually elusive for everyone except those at the very top, and even they remain vulnerable to a stronger challenger. There is no equality, no institutional framework, no fundamental rights, no human rights, and no moral duty accountability.
The Rule of Law
The rule of law emerged in the 20th century. It was created by colonizers out of self-interest. Institutionalized globally through constitutions, charters, and multilateral frameworks, it promised equality before the law, a check on arbitrary authority, and a structural barrier against the concentration of power. These were noble intentions. The reality, however, has proven deeply troubling.
The fundamental structural flaw of the rule of law is that the ultimate power or rule is of the law, that is, of the text. This creates an inbuilt scope for abuse. Law can be written, interpreted, and applied to justify and legalize any act however immoral or unjust. The rule of law does not aim to deliver real justice. It delivers textual justice.
The most glaring contemporary example is the veto power held by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The veto is the institutionalized manifestation of absolute authority. Once a P5 nation exercises its veto, it receives complete legal cover for its actions, however egregious, under the architecture of international law. There is no remedy, no court, no mechanism for accountability.
Given this absolute nature of the veto power, even if a case is raised regarding the arrest of President Maduro, the US, which is a P5 nation, can veto the resolution. The consequence is that the veto would ultimately make the arrest immune to legal challenges and resultantly would legalize and legitimize the arrest under the rule of law.
When viewed comparatively, the rule of law is more dangerous and heinous than the rule of the jungle. The rule of law disguises injustice as justice. It gives legitimacy to the illegitimate and justifies the unjust.
The Rule of Justice
The Rule of Justice is the only governing philosophy that places the right outcome of justice above the instrument meant to deliver it. Law, in this framework, is not the master but the servant. When a law fails to deliver justice, it is the law that must yield, not justice.
The rule of justice demands that every authority be bound by moral constraints that no legislative act can dissolve. It insists that the greatest good must prevail over procedural correctness.
Justice, in this framework, is that force of society that creates and maintains just order. A society based on the rule of justice is the outcome of seven types of forces: Sabhyata, Nyay, Neeti, Sadachar, Sadgun, Maryada, and Sanskriti.
In simple terms, a social order based on the rule of justice is a balance between justice and morality.
In this Sankraman Kaal, humanity faces a fundamental choice. It can continue operating under a rule of law that has demonstrably served as a vehicle for the powerful to legalize the indefensible. Or it can begin building a world order rooted in justice.
(The author is 79th successor to Tirthankar Mahavir in the lineage of Sudharma Swami. He is mentor of an NGO Jyot (India) and Gitarth Ganga – A Spiritual Research Institute. He has also conceptualized movies on moral subjects like Chal Man Jeetva Jaiye Part 1 and 2 and Ek Cheez Milegi Wonderful.)