The rule of law formulated by Raz adds little to a modern democracy as it could apply to both democratic and non-democratic states. The substantive rule of law is impracticable in a system such as that which exists in the United Kingdom, where the legislature is legally sovereign. Indeed, since both versions of the rule of law have been and may be ignored by the legislature, it is pointless to take the rule of law seriously as a feature of the UK constitution. Discuss the above statement and explain whether you agree or disagree with it. You must support your answer by referring to academic and judicial opinion, as well as developing your own argument. There is great difficulty in defining the rule of law despite its unprecedented significance; however, simply in the words of TRS Allan it is "a body of fundamental principles and values, which together give stability and coherence to the legal system". Raz and A. V. Dicey discuss the characteristics of what the law should be in their formal (procedural) definitions, while Fuller examines the content and morality of legislative power. This essay aims to examine both perspectives, questioning the possibility of the rule of law coexisting in a legally sovereign and/or democratic and non-democratic state today. Many argue that the rule of law is outdated and inapplicable to today's modern world. . However, Raz's first principles: "laws should be forward-looking, open, clear" and "relatively stable", are reflected in the partially written constitution of the United Kingdom as parliament is able to amend or implement laws to reflect the evolution of society in modernity. Changes are infrequent and gradual to allow stability and adaptation to new visions. An example is the C......in the center of the card......which sticks out. This validates some aspects of Dicey and Raz's theory of the rule of law, as government officials are prohibited from doing anything that is not written in law to avoid the abuse of their power. In conclusion, taking into account the perspectives on the rule of law law, there are clear limitations when applying to modern democracies. The importance of the rule of law is compromised when a state is legally sovereign since the rule of power will always be supreme. Raz's principles have proven to have limitations as it does not mention the protection of human rights; however, many of its principles are still relevant in modern democracies and easily applicable. The substantive definition of the rule of law is more suitable as it goes beyond the formal rule of law by examining the actual substance of the law rather than just its functions.