This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: A new report by the International Bar Association (IBA) has found a significant gap between the importance legal professionals attach to fundamental rule of law principles and their assessment of how effectively those principles are implemented in practice. Published today, Sept. 16, 2026, The rule of law backsliding survey report examines the state of the rule of law and the role of the legal profession in preventing its backsliding.
This report is the result of a project undertaken by the IBA Rule of Law Forum on rule of law backsliding, which was led by Tahera Mandviwala, member of the forum's advisory board. The project was undertaken with the Bingham Centre for Rule of Law and professors Sandra Kröger and Renata Uitz. As part of this project, the IBA Rule of Law Forum conducted a survey that gathered responses from 326 legal professionals across more than 64 countries between August and December 2025.
Those surveyed represented a wide range of professional backgrounds, including lawyers practicing in law firms, in-house, academia, civil service, government, the judiciary, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other law-related organizations, such as bar associations and law societies. The findings come as the state of the rule of law continues to deteriorate globally. According to the World Justice Project (WJP) 2025 Rule of Law Index, the rule of law is receding at an accelerated rate, with a decline observed in 68% of countries worldwide between 2024 and 2025, marking the eighth consecutive year in which more countries experienced deterioration than improvement.
This has resulted in the deterioration of justice and freedom for billions of people. Across the rule of law principles assessed, respondents gave mean importance scores of between 9.2 and 9.7 out of 10, compared with implementation scores of between 6.2 and 6.8. The disparity is particularly pronounced in relation to access to justice and independent courts.
While 83% of respondents considered access to justice before independent and impartial courts to be extremely important, only 43% considered it to be well implemented in their jurisdiction. The survey identifies judicial independence as a particular area of concern. While 54% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there was no inappropriate or unwarranted interference in the judicial process, 67% identified governmental actors as a threat to judicial independence and 83% identified political parties as a threat.
The findings further demonstrate a tension between confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary and individual experiences of bias. While 75% of respondents agreed that their judiciary was impartial overall, 48% reported having personally witnessed or encountered judicial bias. Professional legal bodies—including bar associations, bar councils and law societies—were identified as an important safeguard for judicial independence, with approximately 95% of respondents recognizing their role.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
