The Rule of Law is contingent upon who makes the laws. Adherence to the Rule of Law is not binding if the laws to which one is expected to adhere are oppressive, immoral or denigrate human or natural rights. One should not obey the Rule of Law if the laws are bad.
You definition of Rights of Common describes the era subsequent to the rights of ordinary people to the land being restricted or denied by the powerful (usually in the name of protection) and by the "word" (the ability to articulate ownership on paper, or more accurately, parchment). You fail to make it clear that common people had common rights through common and communal usage of land before "Rights of Common" were enshrined in law.
To give you an example: in Australia the rights of the Aboriginal peoples have been returned to them by parliament on the basis their common land and rights were denied by the colonial interlopers. As the Aboriginals did not have writing, paper, title deeds and land registries, the identification of ancient land use, spiritual attachment or other evidence has been used to establish their modern rights. The rights are real, mining companies have today to negotiate with communal Aboriginal groups to explore and extract on their land.
Before writing, paper, title deeds and land registries all land was held in common throughout usage, not by law. Today in Asia (China in particular) and all over Africa, people who have held land simply on the basis that they, and often their ancestors, occupied and worked the land, are having it stolen from them.
Their land is being stolen in the same way as true commoners (not those defined in law) had it stolen from them in the British Isles through devices such as the Statue of Merton, the Highland Clearances and over 5,200 Inclosure (Enclosure) Acts passed by pre-democratic parliaments.
In defining "Rights of Common" perhaps you should clarify that all land was once common to all.