On the So-called Principles based Accounting Standards.

Having been a student of legal theory, I find this whole debate on principles-based v. rule-based standards quite

strange.

Pure Rule-based standards with no principles would be like a regime where we have lots of statutes but no constitution. On the other hand, pure principles-based standards would be like a regime where we have a constitution but no statutes.

Both principles and rules are needed for any normative system  to work. Principles are of necessity always conflicting, and therefore their application usually requires weighing/trade-offs; and principles provide a framework in which rules are evaluated. 

Application of rules, on the other hand, is usually an all-or-nothing proposition in that a rule either applies or does not in a specific situation.

Rues are interpreted IN THE CONTEXT of principles in order to provide a coherent conception of what the society considers fair.

These are basic things that legal theory teaches us. I think we accounting academics have our heads buried in the sand. Perhaps a reading of Ronald Dworkin's 'Taking Rights Seriously' or 'Law's Empire' would clear the air.