This exploration of the history, politics, and theories surrounding the notion of the rule of law has presented a tale of continuity and change, shared understandings and sharp disputes. Moreover, each theory of the rule of law examined, whether formal or substantive, raises serious objections or concerns. This is to be expected of any ideal that has survived over two millennia, playing a pivotal role in so many contexts, from Medieval struggles between kings and popes to the global contest between socialism and liberalism. It would be facile to suggest that there is an overarching coherence to the subject. Disagreement exists about what the rule of law means among casual users of the phrase, among government officials, and among theorists. The danger of this rampant uncertainty is that the rule of law might devolve to an empty phrase, so lacking in meaning that it can be proclaimed with impunity by malevolent governments.

A surfeit of definitions of the rule of law has been presented in this work. Adding another in the hope that it would win the day would be redundant and naive. Instead this chapter will isolate and address three familiar themes that run through the rule of law tradition, drawing out the lessons to be taken from the foregoing exploration. They are characterized here as themes or clusters of meaning because, while interrelated, indeed almost inseparable, they revolve around distinct ideas, each with its own specific tilt.