Science1 publisher2 min readPublished
The IBA's own members rate rule-of-law implementation about three points below its importance
The International Bar Association asked 326 legal professionals in more than 64 countries to rate both. The single wave measures how wide the gap is; the eighth straight year of global decline comes from another index.
The Scientist · Science desk
What happened
- The International Bar Association published its rule of law backsliding survey report on Sept. 16, 2026, examining the state of the rule of law and the legal profession's role in preventing its erosion.
- The IBA Rule of Law Forum collected 326 responses between August and December 2025 from lawyers in firms and in-house roles, academics, civil servants, judges and staff at nongovernmental organisations.
- Mean importance scores for the principles assessed came in between 9.2 and 9.7 out of 10, while the same respondents scored implementation of those principles between 6.2 and 6.8.
- Asked about threats to judicial independence, 67% of respondents named governmental actors and 83% named political parties.
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- constraint Because the questionnaire ran once, over five months, it can size the gap but not date it, so anyone arguing that conditions are worsening has to import a second instrument to carry the trend.
- constraint At roughly five responses per country, the survey cannot support jurisdiction-level conclusions, which is the level at which bar associations and justice ministries actually act.
- contradiction A slim majority saw no inappropriate interference in the judicial process, while large majorities named governments and political parties as threats; perceived risk and observed interference are being counted together.
- decision With no settled meaning for judicial accountability, the professional bodies respondents leaned on as safeguards are the same bodies that would have to draw the line between discipline and pressure.
The importance scores carry almost no information. Every principle assessed landed in a band less than half a point wide, near the top of a 10-point scale [4]. Ask a room of lawyers whether independent courts matter and they say yes. The spread lives in the implementation scores. Pair the ends of the two bands and the gap runs from 2.4 points (9.2 against 6.8) to 3.5 points (9.7 against 6.2), with the midpoints about three points apart [1].
The design has one real strength: respondents rated importance and implementation themselves, on the same scale, so the gap is a within-person comparison and does not depend on setting one group's ideals against another group's experience. It also ran once, over five months in 2025 [2]. A single wave fixes a level, and the report's subject is backsliding [1]. The project was led by Tahera Mandviwala of the forum's advisory board, with the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and professors Sandra Kroger and Renata Uitz [13].
The direction of travel in the announcement comes from a different instrument. The World Justice Project's 2025 Rule of Law Index recorded decline in 68% of countries between 2024 and 2025, the eighth consecutive year in which more countries deteriorated than improved [3]. That index and this survey measure different things: one scores country conditions, the other collects practitioner ratings.
Those 326 responses span more than 64 countries, which is about five per country on average [3]. Respondents were rating implementation in their own jurisdiction [5], so the pooled mean mixes systems that start in very different places, and five responses will not carry a country-level reading.
The widest single item is access to justice before independent and impartial courts. Some 83% called it extremely important and 43% called it well implemented, a 40-point difference [5][2]. A similar distance shows up between a system-level judgement and personal observation: 75% agreed their judiciary was impartial overall, and 48% said they had personally witnessed or encountered judicial bias [8]. Those are two different measurements, and the survey reports both without connecting them.
Roughly 95% of respondents recognised the role of bar associations, bar councils and law societies as a safeguard for judicial independence, naming public statements on threats to the judiciary, engagement with lawmakers and monitoring of disciplinary actions against judges among the means [9][14]. The report also finds no universally settled understanding of judicial accountability, and warns that uncertainty about the concept can contribute to undue interference with judicial independence and impartiality [10]. Mandviwala said the most dangerous threat to the rule of law "is not always its outright rejection" [12].
What to watch
- Whether the IBA Rule of Law Forum repeats the same questionnaire; a second wave with identical items is what would turn this level into a trend.
- Publication of country or regional breakdowns from the 326 responses, together with the response counts behind each one.
- The World Justice Project's next annual index, which is the instrument currently carrying the claim that conditions are deteriorating.