Francisco Conference, he should divide his introductory analysis into two parts: the Charter "in its capacity as declaration and the. Charter in its capacity as constitution." The transition from treaty to constitution had been accomplished-at least in the minds of the representatives of the United States. It is from that standpoint, therefore, that we shall conduct our analysis of the organs of the United Nations.
A constitution is not a miscellaneous collection of social rules or "laws." It is a definite piece of social construction, embodying a recognized pattern. Any despot can frame social rules and call them laws. But laws, in the true sense of that word, are constitutional rules, and this implies that there is a permanent constitution behind them. To the Greeks, the originators of constitutional government, a constitution (politeia) was, in its original meaning, an abstract term, denoting the political quality, or what we should today call the way of life, of the community, democratic or aristocratic as the case might be. But when the political thinkers began to analyze what their predecessors, the creators, had accomplished, they discerned in it a pattern. Since this pattern is, let us say so boldly, the right pattern, a pattern which corresponds to the nature of the public affairs with which constitutions are brought into existence to deal, it has become an orthodox or standard pattern, one to which all modern constitution-makers, whether they are true constitutionalists or not, feel it right and expedient to conform. Thus the Soviet Union has a constitution framed according to the standard prescriptions and nobody reading it, and unfamiliar with the conditions in that country, could guess that those who hold power there are totally unable to understand the meaning of the words: "the Rule of Law."