Liberal Rule of Law; A Case Study of Hayek and Nozick

The intrusion into the nature of the liberal rule of law as a dominant discourse in modern public law and the awareness of institutional rationality and its limits are of great importance. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to examine the components of the liberal rule of law from the perspective of two well-known thinkers in this field, Hayek and Nozick, and to explain their legal teachings. Findings of the present article, based on descriptive-analytical method and collection of information through libraries, show the link between nomos and thesis in the legal system, critique of distributive justice and advocacy of modified democracy, emphasis on the meta-legal doctrine of the rule of law and finally setting the normative and institutional framework in Hayek's ideas, on the one hand, and the application of the natural state, the dominant protectionist association, and the social contract to justify the minimal state, acceptance of the minarchy versus anarchy, advocate of entitlement justice instead of distributive justice, and limitation of government functions, the components of the liberal rule of law in the intellectual system of these two thinkers organize that Contemplation in this area has made its differences and similarities with the contemporary rule of law in Iran and efforts to solve the shortcomings of the domestic legal system inevitable.