Throughout the paper there been an in-depth analysis of consistency in standards while comparing various political regimes. The important incorporation of the paper on rule and principle has been dealt with separately, towards the end of the paper. So much so that it is taken an effort to link this part of the paper with the formative part of the paper. Perhaps a better connectivity and incorporation of rules and principles while doing the comparative perspective of United States of America and Germany, would have given a more holistic dimension to the paper.
At the end of the paper, the most significant part of the paper is its suggestions. The authors have given a very limited set of suggestions, particularly those that could be practically applicable and useful to overcome the hurdles and drawbacks in the effort to attain internal consistency. The conclusion given is slightly complex and lacks clarity of suggestions, whereby at one point the author has given suggestions and on the other part he has challenged his own suggestions by saying that it is next to impossible to attain internal consistency.
在整篇文章有一个深入的分析标准的一致性，同时比较不同的政治制度。已注册成立的规则和原则的文件分开处理，对结尾的文件。正因如此，它是采取努力链接形成的文件的一部分，这一部分在纸张与。一个更好的连接性和结合的规则和原则，而美国和德国的美国做比较的角度，或许能提供一个更全面的尺寸在纸张上。
结束时的纸张，纸张的最显着的部分是它的建议。作者都给予了非常有限的建议，特别是那些可以实际的应用，有助于克服的障碍和缺点，努力实现内部一致性。给出的结论是稍微复杂，缺乏明确的建议，在一个点上，作者提出了建议和其他部分，他挑战自己的建议说，这几乎是不可能达到的内部一致性。
