There is an urgency denoted by inquiring about the next twenty years. Do we stand on the cusp of transformation? Is the horizon unusually fraught with rule of law challenge? If one were to ask a machine, or consult a large bulk of legal commentary, the response would reflexively catalogue a familiar litany of challenges: the expansive and unregulated use of artificial intelligence, the governance of climate emergencies, disinformation, the tightening grip of cybersecurity and surveillance law. All are undoubtedly pressing issues. However, there is a temptation here, one I borrow from Hilary Charlesworth’s seminal critique of international law as a “discipline of crisis”, to frame the rule of law’s future through the lens of disruption, emergencies, or watershed moments.[1]
The greatest challenge to the rule of law over the next two decades will not be posed by technological, ecological, or geopolitical “crises”, but by the slow erosion of its normative foundations: the loss of public faith, institutional decay of justice systems, and the casual disregard that governments show for legal limits. Together, this signals the steady, unremarkable dissolution of the rule of law’s normative foundations. I will demonstrate this in two ways: systemic delay and inaccessibility of the justice system at home, and increasingly maverick approaches to the rule of law by governments abroad. The next twenty years may well reap technological and ecological upheaval, but the deeper challenge will be whether societies continue to believe in the rule of law, not as an emergency brake, but as the quiet architecture of everyday life.
Normative foundations:
There is not the space here to delve at length into the debate over the ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ conceptions of the rule of law as championed by Joseph Raz and Ronald Dworkin. For this analysis, I will adopt the “thin” conception of the rule of law: a system where laws are clear, predictable, and enforced impartially by an independent judiciary, with guaranteed access to a fair trial. Underpinning both conceptions is the minimal but essential commitment to access to justice.
Internal threats:
The first and perhaps the most immediate challenge to the rule of law lies in the systemic disruptions confronting the criminal justice system at home. I focus on criminal justice because of it is the arena where the stakes are clearest: the loss of liberty demands the strictest scrutiny of access to fair and timely adjudication. As of March 2025, the system is failing on this front. A record 17,000 defendants are being held on remand, occupying one-fifth of spaces in prisons because of trial delays and not sentencing outcomes.[2] These delays are not merely administrative setbacks but engage the defendant’s Article 6 right to “a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”[3] The backlog also impacts the rights of victims to access expedient justice. According to the latest report by the Victims’ Commissioner, nearly half (48%) of Crown Court trials have been rescheduled, often more than once, compounding distress and corroding faith in the system’s ability to deliver justice at all.[4]
Procedural delay is symptomatic of deeper institutional dysfunction and the lack of cohesion within public services, to dispense with basic rule of law principles. Operation Soteria highlighted the lack of cohesion between CPS prosecutors and police investigators, bureaucratic inertia and evidentiary thresholds, which collectively stalled the prosecution of serious sexual offences.[5] The deadlock of the criminal justice system, evidenced by unprecedented remand figures and delayed trials, not only breaches procedural rights but feeds a deeper, more corrosive trend: the quiet loss of public confidence in law as a dependable framework for justice.
This quiet retreat of public confidence has been worsened by legal aid cuts since LAPSO 2012.[6] Access to adequate legal representation is an increasingly insurmountable barrier for the financially burdened. This challenge to the rule of law was recently highlighted for its capacity to ‘decimate’ universal access to justice for both victims and defendants.[7] Such cuts were made without any serious, holistic understanding of the people they affected.[8] Access to justice is becoming lengthier, more costly and less accessible.
Maverick approaches:
The erosion of public faith is not limited to courtroom delays but is especially evident in the actions of governments that openly defy its constraints. This is particularly apparent in recent cases brought by the European Commission against the rollback of judicial independence in self-declared democracies. In Commission v. Poland Case C-619/18, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that Poland’s enforced early retirement of judges violated both Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, eroding the judiciary’s impartiality.[9] Similarly, in Case 791/19 Commission v. Poland, the Court concluded that Poland’s new disciplinary procedures without any mechanisms for judicial review, violated judicial independence and impartiality by implicitly leaving judges vulnerable to political pressure.[10]
Similar patterns of erosion are apparent on the international stage, South Africa’s recent case before the International Court of Justice, seeking provisional measures to prevent genocide in Gaza, has revealed the unfortunate fragility of the rules-based order.[11] There are two points here. Firstly, the court handing down provisional orders points to the resurgence of atrocities designed to be legally unthinkable precisely because of the post-War international order. Secondly, the relative continuation of conduct by Israeli military forces despite court orders and arrest warrants demonstrates the growing inability of the law to command compliance, even at the gravest threshold. Systemic delays traverse borders, it seems.
Moving forward:
The next twenty years will not signal a watershed moment for the rule of law. The law’s struggle to regulate technological advances, geopolitical crises and climate challenges will no doubt be among the loudest. But the quieter, more corrosive challenge to the rule of law will be its loss of social legitimacy. Like all normative ideals, the rule of law will thrive, or flounder, in the public imagination.
[1] Hilary Charlesworth, ‘International Law: A Discipline of Crisis’ (2002) 65(3) The Modern Law Review 377, 377–92.
[2] Dominic Casciani, ‘More funding for judges to tackle record court delays’ (BBC News, 5 March 2025) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn89656e01do accessed 22 April 2025.
[3] Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6.
[4] Baroness Newlove, Justice Delayed: Human Toll of Gruelling Crown Court Delays on Victims Revealed in New Victims’ Commissioner Report (Victims’ Commissioner, 4 March 2025) https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/justice-delayed-human-toll-of-gruelling-crown-court-delays-on-victims-revealed-in-new-victims-commissioner-report/ accessed 22 April 2025.
[5] National Police Chiefs’ Council, ‘Operation Soteria – Transforming the Investigation of Rape’ (National Police Chiefs’ Council) https://www.npcc.police.uk/our-work/violence-against-women-and-girls/operation-soteria/ accessed 22 April 2025.
[6] Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
[7] JUSTICE, The State We’re In: Addressing Threats & Challenges to the Rule of Law (JUSTICE, September 2023) https://justice.org.uk/the-uks-longstanding-commitment-to-the-rule-of-law-is-under-grave-threat-according-to-landmark-report-from-justice/ accessed 22 April 2025.
[8] National Audit Office, Government’s Management of Legal Aid (National Audit Office, February 2024) https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/governments-management-of-legal-aid/ accessed 22 April 2025.
[9] European Commission v Republic of Poland (Case C-619/18) [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:531.
[10] European Commission v Republic of Poland (Case C-791/19) [2021] ECLI:EU:C:2021:596.
[11] International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Annex 1, 28 December 2023, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf accessed 22 April 2025.
