This guy debates!!

You can't define either of those in a way that everyone can agree on.

There are worse hobbies than arguing on the internet about how to fix the world.

I think justice is the ideal of law, and it is more important in that respect. I think a theoretical perfect law would be identical to a comprehensive, self-evident definition of justice. However, I think it's wise to presume that any law falls short of that ideal, and your "rules" are, technically, still laws.

They're kind of superlaws* to other laws, sort of the way the US Constitution is a superlaw to US federal law, which is itself a superlaw relative to state laws: the sublaws are still enforced, but when a sublaw contradicts a superlaw, the superlaw prevails. But, declaring themselves to be above the law doesn't make them not laws, it just makes them the top layer over all other laws.

I think it's important to never confuse laws with justice, because they never 100% line up. People tend to commit atrocities when they make that mistake.

* sublaw and superlaw are my own terms for this relationship. IDK if there's an official term for the relationship between hierarchical bodies of law

Like most systems, it fails in that it doesn't account for human nature. We're dumb and we fuck shit up.