How does the distinction between rules of law and principles of law in legal principalism affect the application and interpretation of law and the role of judges?

Legal principalism divides legal norms into rules of law and principles of law, with rules of law containing definitive normative content and principles of law containing ideological authority. Rules of law provide legal stability, while principles of law allow for flexible application of the law, and judges use principles of law to realize justice and equity.

 

Legal principalism divides legal norms into legal rules and legal principles. Rules of law have determinate normative content, while principles of law are ideological imperatives, which have normative content that calls for the maximal realization of something in a given situation. Legal principles provide the background for understanding the existence and content of legal rules.
A rule of law is a legal norm whose constituent requirements and the occurrence of its legal effects are definitively stipulated. In other words, a rule of law is a legal effect that must occur if the requirements of the legal norm are true. The process of interpreting and applying rules of law consists of performing logical operations. This logical operation, commonly referred to as the legal syllogism, treats the application of law as a self-evident deduction from two premises. The large premise is a rule of law and the small premise is a fact that has been identified as a condition for the application of the rule of law. The identification of the conditions of application is accomplished by determining that the facts examined fulfill the requirements of the law. Legal conclusions are drawn by applying the rules of law to the facts.
Rules of law play an important role in maintaining the consistency of the legal system. Consistency in the legal system provides predictability for citizens and contributes to legal stability. For example, in contract law, if the requirements necessary for a contract to be formed and its legal effects are clearly defined, parties to a contract can enter into it with a clear understanding of their rights and obligations. This increases the reliability of contracts and facilitates the smooth flow of economic activity.
If there are conflicting rules of law that provide for opposite legal effects for the same behavior, they can be resolved by applying the principle of supremacy of laws, the principle of new law, or by declaring that only one rule of law is valid or by making exceptions. This method of conflict resolution plays an important role in maintaining the unity and stability of the legal system.
A legal principle is a legal norm that has a form in which the occurrence of a legal effect is realized to the maximum extent possible under given conditions. In other words, a legal principle is not a fixed legal effect that will occur if the requirements set by law are met. Legal principles can be applied more flexibly, which helps the legal system adapt to changing social conditions. Legal principles are used as tools to help the law achieve justice and equity in specific situations.
If principles of law conflict in a particular case, they are resolved through benefit sentencing. A conflict of interest sentence is a judgment that chooses which of the legal effects from conflicting legal principles should apply in a particular case. Thus, conflicts between legal principles are addressed in terms of which legal principle has greater weight, as opposed to rules of law. One way of measuring the weight of competing interests is by looking at the optimization of benefit realization.
Principlism views rules of law as the product of interest sentencing. This is because the norms of law obtained as a result of the interest sentence will be in the form of rules of law with specific requirements and legal effects that are specific enough to apply to a particular case. In this context, legal principles provide a background basis for understanding the existence and content of legal rules.
Legal principalism also emphasizes the role of judges in interpreting and applying the law. Principles of law allow judges to consider the purpose and social value of legal norms in making decisions. This means that the law is not just a set of rules, but a tool for realizing social justice. For example, principles of law aimed at protecting fundamental rights guide judges to maximize the rights of individuals in a particular case. This is one of the reasons why legal principalism emphasizes the human aspect of law.