A new report by the International Bar Association (IBA), the global voice of the legal profession, 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, 16 September 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 practising in law firms, in-house, academia, civil service, government, judiciary, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other law-related organisations, 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 per cent 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.
A stark implementation gap
Across the rule of law principles assessed, respondents gave mean importance scores of between 9.2 and 9.7 out of ten, 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 per cent of respondents considered access to justice before independent and impartial courts to be extremely important, only 43 per cent considered it to be well implemented in their jurisdiction.
Judicial independence under pressure
The survey identifies judicial independence as a particular area of concern. While 54 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there was no inappropriate or unwarranted interference in the judicial process, 67 per cent identified governmental actors as a threat to judicial independence and 83 per cent 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 per cent of respondents agreed that their judiciary was impartial overall, 48 per cent reported having personally witnessed or encountered judicial bias.
Bar associations and law societies seen as key safeguards
Professional legal bodies − including bar associations, bar councils and law societies − were identified as an important safeguard for judicial independence, with approximately 95 per cent of respondents recognising their role.
Respondents highlighted the ways in which these organisations can protect judicial independence, including by speaking out publicly on threats to the judiciary, engaging with lawmakers, monitoring threats and disciplinary actions against judges and raising awareness of risks to judicial independence.
The findings reinforce the wider role of the legal profession in protecting institutional checks and balances and ensuring that legal rights and safeguards remain effective in practice.
Accountability must not become a route to interference
The report also identifies a lack of a universally settled understanding of the meaning and application of judicial accountability.
Although respondents widely associated accountability with the combatting of corruption, adherence to judicial and professional standards and effective disciplinary mechanisms, the findings indicate that its interpretation remains highly context-dependent. The report warns that uncertainty around the concept can potentially contribute to undue interference with judicial independence and impartiality.
Tahera Mandviwala, Member of the Advisory Board of the IBA Rule of Law Forum and Managing Partner of TDT Legal, India, commented: 'The most dangerous threat to the rule of law is not always its outright rejection, but the gradual normalisation of its compromise. The findings of this survey offer valuable insight into the state of the rule of law globally. They reveal a central challenge for the rule of law today: widespread agreement about its fundamental principles does not necessarily translate into its effective protection in practice. The gap identified by legal professionals around the world between what the rule of law requires and how those requirements are being implemented in practice should be a matter of serious concern. The issues identified in relation to judicial independence, impartiality and accountability are particularly important as these are not peripheral features of the rule of law, but essential safeguards of justice, public confidence and the lawful exercise of power.'
Ms Mandviwala added: 'The value of this survey report lies in turning these concerns into an evidence base for action. This report is intended to not only identify where the gaps exist, but also to encourage more purposeful and sustained engagement across the legal community to address them. The legal profession has a unique responsibility to help ensure that the fundamental values of the rule of law remain robust, respected and effective in practice, across jurisdictions and over time; and this responsibility has never been more important. This report is a call for action. The principles of the rule of law must be protected and implemented in practice and should not remain mere commitments in principle.'
From diagnosis to action
The report makes a series of recommendations for the legal profession, including:
- strengthening the monitoring of and response to emerging rule of law threats;
- advocating for the integration of rule of law considerations into policy and law-making;
- fostering a shared understanding of the principles of the rule of law, including judicial independence, impartiality, accountability and integrity; and
- building stronger partnerships with civil society and other key stakeholders.
Over several years, the IBA has been publicly highlighting the broader deterioration in rule of law protections. The rule of law backsliding survey report is intended to both identify weaknesses in the implementation of the rule of law and to encourage sustained practical engagement by the legal profession to address them.
