or at least more succinctly:

from MA

Rule of Law has to be understood as it is: a politic philosophy and not another tool from the State Building box.

In my opinion, what most of the people implementing Rule of Law do not get is that Rule of Law does not replace the social contract that fond a society.

The twist may come that in the US Rule of Law is the Social Contract: the US constitution.

When rule of law is exported, either you have a social contract meeting the pre requirement of rule of law and it's a success.

Or you just have a social contract that support socio-economical division of political power and you end up with Rule by Law.

Rule of Law cannot be exported without being supported by the people.
QED (Quod est demonstratum).

That having been said, the term "rule of law" is very much in the "toolkit". E.g., the 2009 Rule of Law Handbook (available at CLAMO website), A Practitioner's Guide for Judge Advocates, which deals in practice with the domestic, civilian law of host nations - as well as with some I Law and Military Law issues.

So far as defining "rule of law", the doctrine provided is (pp. 24-25):

Rule of law is a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights principles.

That principle can be broken down into seven effects:

• The state monopolizes the use of force in the resolution of disputes

• Individuals are secure in their persons and property

• The state is itself bound by law and does not act arbitrarily

• The law can be readily determined and is stable enough to allow individuals to plan their affairs

• Individuals have meaningful access to an effective and impartial legal system

• The state protects basic human rights and fundamental freedoms

• Individuals rely on the existence of justice institutions and the content of law in the conduct of their daily lives
The Chinese legal scholars of the Manchu period (and before, and perhaps now) would call that fa-chie (rule by law) effectively implemented. Absent the bullet points of "and which are consistent with international human rights principles" and "The state protects basic human rights and fundamental freedoms", which did not enter the picture.

What is interesting is that the Chinese people avoided the hsien (district) courts like the plague (for good reasons), in favor of the traditional clan, village and guild methods of dispute resolution.

Regards

Mike