Такое вот предположение, сейчас подтверждений поищем.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-05 10:53:44 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Вот одно пояснение:

http://books.cambridge.org/0521532663.htm

This book addresses why governments sometimes follow the law and other times choose to evade the law. The traditional answer of jurists has been that laws have an autonomous causal efficacy: law rules when actions follow anterior norms; the relation between laws and actions is one of obedience, obligation, or compliance. Contrary to this conception, the authors defend a positive interpretation where the rule of law results from the strategic choices of relevant actors. Rule of law is just one possible outcome in which political actors process their conflicts using whatever resources they can muster: only when these actors seek to resolve their conflicts by recourse to la, does law rule. What distinguishes ‘RULE-OF-LAW’ as an institutional equilibrium from ‘RULE-BY-LAW’ is the distribution of power. The former emerges when no one group is strong enough to dominate the others and when the many use institutions to promote their interest.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-05 10:59:37 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

И вот еще:

http://www.angelfire.com/space/pls/Docs/Inside_Out_1/Rule_of...

The rule of law does not mean rule by law: that is, so long as there is a law on the subject the rule of law is operating. It does not mean the law of the ruler. Nor is it equivalent to “law and order”.

A clue to its meaning would be given by the addition of one word to the phrase: “the just rule of law”. ... The rule of law is both normative and descriptive: it is a universal ideal; it is a restraint on arbitrary power. It is extremely difficult to define comprehensively. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in 1959 described two ideals underlying the concept of the Rule of Law:

* All power in the state should be derived from and exercised in accordance with the law.

* The law itself must be based upon respect for the supreme value of human personality.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-05 11:02:06 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------



Ссылок много, причем очень часто именно в противопоставлении. Громоздить не стану, но вывод действительно такой:

rule by law -- это не очень демократичная система, когда слепо следуют \"сухой букве\", да и \"букву\" это выбирают частенько по личному желанию и произволу.

rule of law -- это именно демократическая система, когда законы используются во благо людям. Последняя ссылка, которую я дал, дает как раз перечисление всех принципов этой \"идеальной системы\".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-05 11:04:07 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------



И еще напоследок интересное описание:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_novdec_2002/gns3.html

In his introduction, Holmes offers a crucial distinction between two types of legal systems: rule by law and rule of law. Under the former, a small elite uses laws “to protect and consolidate its privileges and power”; under the latter, power in society is sufficiently dispersed to allow many groups and people “to use law to pursue their goals and safeguard their assets to some extent.” Today, Russia is governed by the rule-by-law model. The success of Putin’s judicial reform will be judged by how much closer it brings the country to a rule-of-law system.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-05 11:13:49 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Вот ! А может чуть ли не в лоб: \"власть закона\" vs \"закон власти\" ? Надо подумать, но, вроде бы, вписывается довольно неплохо в смысл...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-05 11:16:39 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Да, ВЛАСТЬ ЗАКОНА и ЗАКОН ВЛАСТИ.