The rule of law needs reaffirmation – Julinda Beqira and Lawrence Mcnamara

25 September 2014 by

PAjusticeOver the next year the United Nations will discuss and adopt an agenda for global development for 2015 – 2030. It will set out the aims countries should strive to achieve in order to secure economic, social and environmental development.

One of the most contentious points of debate – and one of the most important – will be what role the rule of law will occupy in the post-2015 development agenda. Its significance cannot be overstated as it reaches into the very heart of how our future will be shaped.

This year’s General Assembly meetings commence on 24 September and run until 1 October. They will be crucial in shaping the post-2015 agenda. Of the paths the GA may take, there are two main options:

  • in one path, the rule of law will be stated as a goal that States should strive to achieve.
  • in the other, it will not be.

What path should the UN take? And what path will it take?

The paths taken so far

Each of these two options has been, and will continue to be, influenced by UN initiatives, regional consultations, input from business and the private sector, input from NGOs and, of course, input from countries both individually and in blocs. Two streams of influence have been especially important from the perspective of the inclusion of the rule of law in the Post-2015 Agenda.

The first was the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons, co-chaired by UK Prime Minister David Cameron. This was a UN Secretary General multi-stakeholder initiative consisting of representatives from civil society, the private sector, academia and local governments, alongside State representatives. Its 2013 report strongly recommended the inclusion of the rule of law in post-2015 development agenda. The PM has described the rule of law as part of ‘the golden thread’ of growth and development.

The second was the Open Working Group (OWG) of the General Assembly which is a State-led initiative that emerged from the UN Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development. On 19 July this year, the OWG delivered a final compilation of 17 proposed goals and 169 targets on sustainable development for the post-2015 development agenda – the so called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The idea is that the goals can be realised by achieving the specific, measurable targets, for which indicators will be set in due course. The SDGs build on the foundations of the MDGs, complete them and respond to new challenges in global priorities.

The rule of law – falling out of favour

It was at these most recent meetings of the OWG that the rule of law fell out of favour.   The OWG began by considering what was called the “zero draft version” of the goals in which the rule of law was specifically among the sustainable development goals that were proposed for the post-2015 development agenda. However, in the last month ‘access to justice’ took the place of ‘the rule of law”’ in the version of Goal 16 that will be put to the General Assembly. Goal 16 now reads, “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”

Goal 16 proved to be one of the most divisive issues among OWG delegations at different levels. At least 58 countries, including the UK, and the EU speaking for its Member States, wanted the rule of law in the text of Goal 16. Others, however, did not. The debate concentrated mainly on the exact scope of the mandate of the OWG as framed in the outcome document of the UN Rio+20 Conference and on the existence or not of a consensus over an intergovernmentally-agreed definition of ‘the rule of law’. 

Access to justice: moving forward but stepping back 

In the face of such division, the position that will be put to the General Assembly this month represents a significant compromise. The inclusion of access to justice in a Sustainable Development Goal is in some respects a great achievement. Without doubt, it places a foot in the door for one element of the rule of law. It is also true that the rule of law itself still features in the Introduction to the SDGs as a general and crosscutting guiding principle, sitting alongside other purposes and principles of the UN Charter. The Introduction to the proposed SDGs additionally recognises the important link between the rule of law and sustainable, inclusive and equitable development. The promotion of the rule of law is also referred to in the same breath as access to justice in Target 16.3.

However, the proposed Goal 16 represents a last moment retreat from a broader commitment that seemed to attract wide consensus among the UN Member States and civil society. Besides access to justice, the rule of law includes other elements – such as the principle of legality, transparent and accountable law, fair trials, legal certainty, respect for human rights, non-discrimination, independence of the judiciary and equality before the law. These are of profound importance to sustainable development, inclusive economic growth, eradication of poverty and the full realization of human rights.

The path ahead: what is the fate of the rule of law?

Following a high-level “stocktaking” event last week, and with the proposed SDGs to be submitted to the GA “for consideration” next week, and then looking ahead to the high level summit of September 2015 when the Assembly will finalise the post-2015 agenda, the fate of the rule of law is not yet sealed. As a core and indispensable element of empowerment, stability and development it is vital that the rule of law occupies a firm and clear place in the development agenda for the fifteen years that follow. It is crucial that it retains – at a minimum – its present profile, and it is to be hoped that in the coming year the rule of law will regain the initial traction of previous negotiations and be established as a distinct development goal.

Without the rule of law in the goals, some of the errors and omissions of the Millennium Development Goals will persist, and it will be much more difficult to achieve respect for the human dignity of the poor and marginalised.

Dr Lawrence McNamara is Deputy Director & Senior Research Fellow and Julinda Beqiraj is Research Fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law 

1 comment;

  1. says:

    I’m extremely glad to see the headline below, having felt the Rule of Law most at risk at time of impending serious changes likely to result from global warming, population increase, and resource depletion. Am hoping this matter will be addressed in Cambridge University’s ‘Crisis & Social Change’ conference during the next two days. Very many thanks for your H Rts blog and for all you do in this field. Best in haste, Colin

    Colin Lester, Administrator Cambridgeshire & District Law Society 6 Crossways, The Green, Haddenham, Ely CB6 3TP phone/fax 01353 741530 (Mon-Thu 9.30-5)

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: