In Latin America the fact that governments threaten judicial independence by unduly sanctioning, removing, and intimidating judges is becoming a continuing concern for all involved in the region. The IBA will soon publish a thematic paper entitled Politicisation and Abuse: Judicial Accountability in Latin America. In this paper a four-pronged approach is recommended in order to protect the judiciary from political interference and increase public trust in the judiciary: (1) promote personal and institutional judicial integrity, (2) increase the transparency of the judiciary, (3) clarify the rules and procedures for disciplining judges, and (4) ensure the transparency and impartiality of disciplinary processes.

There are further examples of problems in other parts of the world, including Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Reference could in this context be made to IBAHRI´s Thematic Papers No 4 of June 2014 Judicial Independence: Some Recent Problems by Geoffrey Robertson QC. In this paper[9] Robertson surveys “some recent problems: the difficulty of detecting and dealing with the judge who becomes a government lickspittle, the confusion associated with the arcane method of ‘impeachment’ and other methods for removing senior judiciary; the pressures on courts from cost-cutting in a time of austerity; and the limited remedies available domestically and internationally against governments that seek to bend judges to their will.”

Finally in this context: the IBA will soon publish a study relating to typologies of corruption in the judiciary.

In my analyses, irrespective of the subject matter – be it peace and security, climate change, the Sustainable Development Goals, empowerment of women – I have a tendency to end up in the Security Council of the United Nations, and in particular among the five permanent members of the Council. They are the ones who should set the example when it comes to establishing the rule of law both at the national and international levels. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, things started going in the right direction. However, in 2003 we experienced a serious turning point. I refer to the attack by the United States and the United Kingdom, both permanent members of the Security Council, on Iraq in flagrant violation of the UN Charter. In my view, this was also the seed of what is now Daesh or ISIS. 

Next came the attack by Russia, another permanent member of the UN Security Council, on Georgia in 2008. And now we have the situation in Ukraine. Both attacks are flagrant violations of the UN Charter and have resulted in extensive violations of human rights.

This is where I see a real need for reform[10] and where Western democracies should make a determined effort to contribute. The present situation in Syria and its consequences in Europe is actually the result of the inability of the members of the Security Council to unite and act with determination and consequence when this is needed the most. If they were able to do so, they would actually prevent conflicts of the nature that we are now experiencing, and which give rise to many of the problems that we are facing in the world at present.

As I said when I left the UN in 2004, what is needed is statesmanship. And there must be an understanding among the five permanent members of the Council that they must fulfil their mandate under the UN Charter: the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. This requires that they unite and that they stop using illegitimate vetoes. Incidentally, France and the United Kingdom have not used their veto after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

In later years, we have also seen a serious development in the political field in Europe. New political parties with strong nationalistic ideas have emerged, hostile to international cooperation and no real commitment to observing human rights standards. Lately, this has been exacerbated by the situation created by the influx of a large number of refugees. Unfortunately, a similar development seems to take place in the United States.

This development has to be countered. What is needed here is a major educational effort. A particular focus should be education of politicians who have a very special responsibility for establishing and maintaining the rule of law. In the 2013 spring issue of International Judicial Monitor, I made reference to a short guide, some 40 pages only, entitled Rule of Law – A guide for politicians.[11] This guide is now available free of charge in 23 languages for downloading and printing from the web. All members in English-speaking parliaments in the world, including the U.S. Congress, should now also have received a personal copy of the original English version.

Needless to say, national bar associations have a very important role in establishing the rule of law. I was invited to address this question at a conference in Tehran on 26 July 2015, organised by the Union of the Iranian Bar Associations and the International Bar Association. Allow me to refer to my presentation on that occasion[12] entitled The function of Bar Associations to promote the rule of law – defending the rights of lawyers, educating the public about the rule of law. National bar associations can also assist in explaining to the general public that there are certain rules that apply, including rules established by a generation that had experienced two world wars. If governments go astray, it is important that lawyers speak up.

Of particular importance in this educational effort is to keep in mind that the members of the United Nations have come to an understanding that the rule of law is an indispensable prerequisite for international peace and security. I refer here in particular to resolution A/RES/67/1 [13] adopted by the UN General Assembly on 24 September 2012: Declaration of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the rule of law at the national and international levels. Specific reference should be made to the following two paragraphs in this resolution:

1. We reaffirm our solemn commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and justice, and to an international order based on the rule of law, which are indispensable foundations for a more peaceful, prosperous and just world.

5. We reaffirm that human rights, the rule of law and democracy are interlinked and mutually reinforcing and that they belong to the universal and indivisible core values and principles of the United Nations.

Finally, with respect to the United States and the United Nations, let me once again quote President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In his Second Inaugural Address[14] on 21 January 1957, the President and former general said:

We recognize and accept our own deep involvement in the destiny of men everywhere. We are accordingly pledged to honor, and to strive to fortify, the authority of the United Nations. For in that body rests the best hope of our age for the assertion of that law by which all nations may live in dignity.

Where did this wisdom go?