World justice – the rule of law around the world
Abstract:
Critical issues associated with legal structures and processes determine the extent to which countries have the capacity to deal with topics that affect the expectations of governments and societies. So it is that rule of law can be seen as an impediment to the dissemination of information, as can be facilitated by social media applications. In this regard, of particular interest is the Rule of Law Index that was developed and administered by the World Justice Project. This index offers the means by which strong comparison can be made between countries in terms of similarities and differences as to the rule of law. Specific examples in comparative analysis undertaken show the basis for varying treatment of liberties, as seen in containment of Internet usage, specifically due to the effectiveness of social media in rallying people to support particular causes. The more that such causes are in contrast to government interests, the more likely is it that the rule of law will be applied to thwart possible or actual opposition. Some countries, clearly, have more legal capacity to do so than do others. Accordingly, the Rule of Law Index helps to explain why that is so. It is an emerging question, then, as to whether social media provides a chance for development, or a serious challenge to some countries.
Legal implications of social media
One of the most interesting aspects of the Internet age is the legal implications of social media. As is generally understood, laws were developed and influenced by culture, religion and the natural obsession of humans to attain power to control, as well as to gain insight in relation to other people. Similarly, the digital age has also influenced laws. Privacy of employees versus the rights of employers, utilising and protecting intellectual property, such as music, copyrights and trademarks, in addition to the movement of data, are just some of the broader issues we are facing in modern society. In addition, and conversely, the development of social media is influenced by the law.
In this chapter we will explore how the law, which in stark contrast to the Internet is still pretty much controlled within borders, adjusted to the Internet age. Clearly, any areas of professional, social and industrial activity are now guided by global standards, such as accounting and business reporting standards by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), technical standards by ISO and electrical standards by IEEE. In relation to global legal standards, however, these are still very much in their infancy and it is, therefore, difficult to look at what the legal implications of social media are on a global scale. Even so, the World Justice Project (WJP) explores legal situations for major countries and this credible effort is ideally suited to show what the implications might be for the inroads that social media is making in various countries.
The rule of law
As societies of the world grow closer together, the laws are expected to converge. Will there be justice around the world? Certainly there should more justice as we learn more from each other through social media, and as we travel virtually around the globe. For instance, intellectual property will be shared, and managed universally as we improve the use of all assets, physical or otherwise. So in that regard, as well as in others, we can imagine that the rule of law will continue to govern at a local level and that, overall, the rule of law will find common denominators when international comparisons are made, and as commonalities are pushed to new frontiers by mutual judicial and legislative interests.
It is worthwhile pondering a very pertinent question at this point. Particularly, what is the current status of world justice? Can we even measure and compare different levels of justice? In reply, the Rule of Law Index is noteworthy. Specifically, it is a new tool that is developed and administered by the World Justice Project (WJP) to measure countries’ adherence to the rule of law in practice. It is heralded as being a multidisciplinary, multinational movement to advance the rule of law for communities of opportunity and equity. In addition, this work provides new data regarding a variety of dimensions as to the rule of law. Essentially, the index currently covers 66 countries. (See www.worldjusticeproject.org.) On the following pages, we will take a look at three countries in more detail: Germany, China and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), selected especially because these three differ in terms of size, governance, religious foundations and average income levels. Accordingly, these are representative of many others captured by the index.
So, let us start with the rule of law definition.
In its basic form, it is generally held that the rule of law is the legal maxim that no one is above the law. Essentially, all people and any institutions are subject to law that is applied and enforced in a fair way. That is to say, legal and governmental decisions are made by applying known principles and laws, and this is done with minimal discretion in their application.
Yet different people have differing opinions about what the rule of law means. Two major ideas have achieved general acceptance, with these being a formalist and a substantive definition. While formalists do not make a judgement about the justness of law itself, they define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. From the substantive perspective, this is not enough. Substantive conceptions require certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived, from the rule of law.1
Despite shades of difference in the related definition, the Rule of Law Index initiated by the World Justice Project analyses the rule of law around the world from a practical perspective. It is designed to offer a detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries, in each case, adhere to the rule of law in practice.2 The Index, therefore, considers practical situations in which a rule of law deficit might affect the daily lives of people. For instance, are the laws stable and comprehensible to members of the general public? Do people have access to public services without the need to pay any related bribe? Do individuals and entities have equal access to justice?
In 2011, as suggested earlier, 66 countries participated in global polls conducted by the WJP in which 2000 experts, and over 66 000 other people, responded. The data collected by the WJP was analysed and then organised in the form of country reports, tables and figures. See Table 3.1 for countries referenced in the 2011 survey, as well as the related methodology which follows.
Table 3.1
| Country | Region | Income level |
| Albania | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | Upper middle income |
| Argentina | Latin America & Caribbean | Upper middle income |
| Australia | East Asia & Pacific | High income |
| Austria | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| Bangladesh | South Asia | Low income |
| Belgium | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| Bolivia | Latin America & Caribbean | Lower middle income |
| Brazil | Latin America & Caribbean | Upper middle income |
| Bulgaria | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | Upper middle income |
| Cambodia | East Asia & Pacific | Low income |
| Cameroon | Sub–Saharan Africa | Lower middle income |
| Canada | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| Chile | Latin America & Caribbean | Upper middle income |
| China | East Asia & Pacific | Lower middle income |
| Colombia | Latin America & Caribbean | Upper middle income |
| Croatia | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | High income |
| Czech Republic | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | High income |
| Dominican Republic | Latin America & Caribbean | Upper middle income |
| El Salvador | Latin America & Caribbean | Lower middle income |
| Estonia | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | High income |
| Ethiopia | Sub–Saharan Africa | Low income |
| France | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| Germany | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| Ghana | Sub–Saharan Africa | Low income |
| Guatemala | Latin America & Caribbean | Lower middle income |
| Hong Kong SAR, China | East Asia & Pacific | High income |
| India | South Asia | Lower middle income |
| Indonesia | East Asia & Pacific | Lower middle income |
| Iran | Middle East & North Africa | Upper middle income |
| Italy | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| Jamaica | Latin America & Caribbean | Upper middle income |
| Japan | East Asia & Pacific | High income |
| Jordan | Middle East & North Africa | Lower middle income |
| Kazakhstan | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | Upper middle income |
| Kenya | Sub–Saharan Africa | Low income |
| Kyrgyzstn | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | Low income |
| Lebanon | Middle East & North Africa | Upper middle income |
| Liberia | Sub–Saharan Africa | Low income |
| Malaysia | East Asia & Pacific | Upper middle income |
| Mexico | Latin America & Caribbean | Upper middle income |
| Morocco | Middle East & North Africa | Lower middle income |
| Netherlands | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| New Zealand | East Asia & Pacific | High income |
| Nigeria | Sub–Saharan Africa | Lower middle income |
| Norway | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| Pakistan | South Asia | Lower middle income |
| Peru | Latin America & Caribbean | Upper middle income |
| Philippines | East Asia & Pacific | Lower middle income |
| Poland | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | High income |
| Romania | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | Upper middle income |
| Russia | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | Upper middle income |
| Senegal | Sub–Saharan Africa | Lower middle income |
| Singapore | East Asia & Pacific | High income |
| South Africa | Sub–Saharan Africa | Upper middle income |
| South Korea | East Asia & Pacific | High income |
| Spain | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| Sweden | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| Thailand | East Asia & Pacific | Lower middle income |
| Turkey | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | Upper middle income |
| United Arab Emirates | Middle East & North Africa | High income |
| Uganda | Sub–Saharan Africa | Low income |
| Ukraine | Eastern Europe & Central Asia | Lower middle income |
| United Kingdom | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| United States | Western Europe & North America | High income |
| Venezuela | Latin America & Caribbean | Upper middle income |
| Vietnam | East Asia & Pacific | Lower middle income |
Source: World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2011
Note: In 2012, more countries, expected to be in excess of 100, will provide data for the next report.
The challenge was to formulate a set of principles that would constitute a definition of the rule of law. Since we are living in different constitutions, political systems and cultures, as well as having different religious and ethical backgrounds, it was essential to establish standards and norms that enjoy broad acceptance across countries, and incorporate both substantive and procedural elements. The result of this serious consideration was a set of eight indicators. Effectively, there are eight principles to measure how legal systems function in relation to prevalent political powers and to individuals of each state. These are:
Each of these is addressed in turn in summary form below.
Limited government powers
Government powers should be defined by fundamental law. It measures not only to what extent they are limited by legislature and judiciary, but, if the government and its officials are limited by independent auditing and review, also if they are sanctioned for misconduct. It also includes nongovernmental checks.
Absence of corruption
This factor deals with the question as to whether government officials use, or do not use, public office for private gain. Bribery, improper influence by public and private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources are analysed. This includes the executive branch, police and military, as well as the judiciary and the legislature.
Order and security
Order and security focuses on how the government assures the security of persons and property in terms of whether crime is effectively controlled and civil conflicts are limited. This includes also terrorism, the absence of violence and vigilantism.
Fundamental rights
Fundamental rights have to be protected. Although the discussion about what rights are – and always will be – in progress, and may never be fully resolved, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights3 builds the framework for this index. This principle requires governments to respect core human rights that are established under international law and are most closely related to the rule of law.
Against this background, the right to life, freedom of thought, religion and expression, equal treatment and absence of discrimination, the right to privacy, freedom of assembly and association, as well as fundamental labour rights, were identified as a minimum of human rights that should be guaranteed.
Open government
People are able to abide by law if they know what the law is. On the one hand, the law must be comprehensible, clear and explained to the public in plain language. This factor includes the basic necessity not only to publish the law, but also to make laws widely accessible to the general public.
On the other hand, it is determined whether the people have the possibility to take part in the process of making laws. This means, among other criteria, that official drafts and information are available, that proceedings are held with timely notice and are open to the public, and that people have the right to petition.
Effective regulatory enforcement
This factor measures the extent to which government regulations are fair and effectively enforced. Such regulations should be applied without improper influence by public officials, or by private interests. It covers the adherence to administrative procedures that are consistent and predictable.
Access to civil justice
All people should have access to civil justice. Legal advice and representation should be affordable. It requires the system to be free of discrimination, corruption and improper government influence.
Effective criminal justice
Here, effective criminal justice means that the crimes are investigated effectively and adjudicated in a timely manner. The criminal justice system should be impartial, as well as free of corruption and improper government influence.
These measures allowed for more exploration as to the results inter–regionally, as is the purpose of the next section.
Rankings of the rule of law by regions
The average ranking sees Europe and North America ahead of most other regions. Surprisingly, the greatest weakness in Western Europe and North America appears to be related to the accessibility of the civil justice system, especially for low–income segments of the population. This is likely to change as electronic systems and monopolistic powers of the legal profession are improved in this region.
See Table 3.2 on the next page for related details.
Now, let us have a detailed look at three very different countries that exemplify how different political and cultural systems perform in this report. As indicated earlier, the three countries chosen for this purposes are:
Each if these is considered below, with particular attention paid to Germany in order to provide an understanding as to the details that are available in the WJP Rule of Law Report 2011.
Germany
As might well be expected, Germany is one of the top performers in this report. To a great extent, the government is accountable. Fundamental rights are well protected, and corruption is very low, with this resulting in a high ranking for Germany of 6th out of 66. See the following report extracts for particular details.
In the first instance, Table 3.3 below shows the ranking of Germany in relation to the eight factors that are fundamental to the construction of Rule of Law Index.
The table displays the featured country’s aggregate scores by factor and the country’s rankings within its regional and income level groups. The table is organised as follows.
The first column lists the first eight factors that make up the Index.
The second column displays the country’s aggregate score for each of the eight factors.
The third column displays the country’s global ranking for each factor.
The fourth column shows the country’s ranking within its region.
The fifth column shows the country’s ranking among countries with comparable per capita income levels.
The index points out that the German civil justice system, ranking 2nd of 66, is nearly free of undue influence. In addition, access to the civil justice system is affordable, and courts are reported to be efficient. Due to the possibility of legal aid, even people with no income have access to the civil justice system and can afford legal advice.
The following graphs provide additional details in relation to the WJP assessment of Germany. Particularly, these graphs present the scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors for Germany.
The four graphs in Figures 3.2 and 3.3 show the country’s disaggregated scores for each of the sub–factors that compose the WJP Rule of Law Index. Each graph shows a circle that corresponds to one concept measured by the Index. Each sub–factor is represented by a radius running from the centre of the circle to the periphery. The centre of each circle corresponds to the lowest possible score for each sub–factor (0.00) and the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score for each sub–factor (1.00). Higher scores signify a higher adherence to the rule of law.
Figure 3.2 Accountable Government/Security and Fundamental Rights – Germany Source: World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2011
Figure 3.3 Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement/Access to Justice – Germany Source: World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2011
As per the key to each graph presented in Figure 3.1, the country scores are shown with a thick line that features small squares. The graphs also show the average scores of all countries indexed within the region (by way of a line that features small triangles) and all countries indexed with comparable per capita income levels (represented by a thin line that features small squares). As a point of reference, the graphs also show the score achieved for each sub–factor by the top performer among all 66 countries indexed (being a small dot close to the end of each radius).
Firstly, we see the scores for what constitutes accountable government, as well as security and fundamental rights.
Secondly, we see the scores for what constitutes open government and regulatory enforcement, as well as access to justice.
Nevertheless, equal access to justice can differ, even in high–income countries. This is shown in Figure 3.4 wherein a comparison is made between Germany and the United States of America.
Figure 3.4 Access to Justice: Germany and the USA Source: World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2011
While in Germany income plays no significant role in filing a lawsuit in court to resolve a dispute, it seems that in the United States only the Americans with a high income use the court system. Most of the people with low income take no action and are discriminated against.
These sub-factors are available for each country and provide a deeper look as to why these countries are listed as they are in relation to the behaviour of government, fundamental rights of individuals and access to the justice system.
The United Arab Emirates
Compared to other countries in this region that took part in the Rule of Law Index survey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has the highest scores in most dimensions, ranking 1st. When considering the related results globally, the UAE performs much better than expected in terms of absence of corruption, order and security, regulatory enforcement, access to civil justice and effectiveness of criminal justice.
Although fundamental rights are still limited in the UAE, including freedom of religion and assembly, labour rights and freedom of opinion and expression, it is apparent that the civil court system works in an efficient manner. It is also evident that courts and public institutions in the UAE are well developed and relatively free of corruption.
This report also shows, quite strikingly, that crime in the UAE is effectively investigated and adjudicated in a timely manner. In fact, the criminal justice system of the UAE ranks fourth out of all countries.
See Table 3.4 for more detailed results related to the UAE.
China
China does well among lower–middle income countries in most categories, and is the second–best performer among the comparable, and commonly grouped, BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China). It is reported that China has seen major improvements in the quality, effectiveness and accountability of its legal institutions. Security is high, ranking 25th, and the criminal justice systems ranks 2nd among its income–related peers. However, enforcement of regulations is relatively ineffective, ranking 43rd globally and 8th among lower–middle income countries. Yet the civil court system is relatively accessible and speedy. But judicial independence remains an area where more progress is needed. Also, indicators of fundamental rights are weak, including labour rights ranking 61st out of 66, freedom of speech ranking 66th globally and freedom of assembly also ranking 66th.
See Table 3.5 for more detailed results related to China.
Rule of Law Index and social media
A question that naturally arises here is: how do we relate WJP Rule of Law Index factors to rights in social media and open access to the Internet? Since the Internet is run mostly by privately owned entities, corruption does not seem to play a significant role. However, we can consider that fundamental rights and access to civil justice seem most important.
Now, consider a few appropriate comparisons. For instance, due to governmental powers, China ranks nearly at the end of the scale (being 64th out of 66 countries for that indicator) and the close relations to religion places the UAE at 51 out of 66.
Access to civil justice is fairly good in China, and the UAE ranks highly. Germany, as mentioned before, is number two in this category, well ahead of the frequently so-called ‘superior’ justice system of the USA (which is only ranked in 21st place out of 66 countries).
Lastly, who has the most efficient criminal justice system? For this indicator, Norway is rated number one and Hong Kong is in the number two position. Also, note that China ranks at number 25, Germany is in 9th place and the UAE (where 56 per cent of people live in the largest three cities) has an amazing 4th place result. All of these countries, generally, allow Internet access.
We could ponder whether access to the Internet plays an important role for any country on its way to a level of world justice, and if the reverse is true, whereby a low level of social justice is commensurate with low Internet access. In relation to this issue, give some thought to places like North Korea and Cuba where access to the Internet is very limited. There, the justice systems are the least developed parts of society and, in this day and age, it is surprising how single countries are still able to stop citizens from accessing the wonderful world of knowledge and international relations provided by the Internet and social media applications.
Consider also that Internet censoring seems to have roots in selected chapters of history, as well as in other issues of immense sensitivity. For example, Germany bans open comment on relatively recent history pertaining to German involvement in World War II, as well as to child pornography, which transcends time. Also, China is allergic to news about its connection with and affection for Tibet, and the UAE protects Islamic religion, as well as commercial interests associated with newly created phone companies there.
Of course, ideally, the blocking and filtering of Internet–based information will be reduced and the global community can participate in open discussions on any topic. But this aspiration needs the participation of everybody, including governments, religious leaders and lastly (but by no means least) the open–minded people who jump national firewalls in a well– meaning and diligent effort to improve their nation’s circumstances through striving for equality and world justice. This intellectual movement, then, will have a driving effect on the rest of the world’s legal system, as it is too focused on individual ownership of physical assets, as well as maintaining (inadvertently or otherwise) greed and disrespect for other global citizens.
Social media – chance or challenge?
Over two billion people now have access to the Internet. However, as that access increases, restriction is sure to increase too. Several reports stress that in the last few years, a growing number of governments are moving to restrict the free flow of information on the Internet. For instance, in 15 of 37 countries examined in the Freedom of the Net Report 2011, governments were actively engaged in the blocking of politically relevant information on the web. In detail, this means the blocking of websites for undefined periods, restricted user access, extensive surveillance and user registration, as well as the building of legal frameworks for filtering political content. In addition, private entities that fail to comply with these draconian regulations are sanctioned.
In China, more than 400 million people have access to the Internet. Nevertheless, it is the most censored environment for communication via the web. Chinese authorities have established a very sophisticated system of censoring, monitoring and manipulation. Hundreds of thousands of people are employed to control content. More than 60 000 websites were shut down in 2010 because of so-called ‘harmful materials’ and 350 million articles, videos and photographs were deleted. The most systematically censored topics included criticism of top leaders, independent evaluations of China’s human rights record, violation of minority rights in Tibet, Xinjiang, the 1989 Beijing massacre and dissident initiatives.
Interestingly, cyber attacks, politically motivated censorship and government control over Internet infrastructure did not only emerge in China. For example, Internet freedom is classified as non–free in countries such as Iran, Burma (Myanmar), Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Cuba, Ethiopia, Bahrain, Thailand, Tunisia and Vietnam. New Internet restrictions around the globe are partly a response to the explosion in the popularity of advanced applications, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, through which ordinary users can easily post their own content, share information and connect with large audiences. While serving mostly as a form of entertainment, over the last two years these tools have also played a significant role in political and social activism.
In countries with substantial censorship of political and social issues, such as China, Iran or Saudi Arabia, human rights defenders and pro–democracy reformers use the Internet to connect with each other and to build platforms to communicate more effectively to a broader audience, as well as among themselves. In restricted countries, such as those mentioned above, journalists need to be trained in the gathering of information and resources to facilitate public access to information that otherwise and in other places is readily available. For example, Gozaar, an online magazine that is supported by Freedom House, serves as an interactive, inclusive space for the discussion of human rights and democracy in Iran. Moreover, there exist hundreds of circumvention tools to avoid the government–endorsed restrictions. To date, those tools are relatively unknown to the general populace. A major aim for many who seek greater equality, fairness and justice will increase the awareness of such tools among the general populace.
All things considered, it can be said that social media applications function not only as a so–called watchdog in relation to the abuse of government powers, corruption and avoidance of human rights. Social media also gives power to people in some countries who have little opportunity to participate in a democratic manner. Accordingly, social networking platforms are, and will be, essential tools to report and discuss rule of law abuses, mobilise support and make such issues visible. Therefore, it is more than probable that social media will play a significant role in defending private rights.
Conclusion
Regarding future legal consolidation, let’s take a look from a different perspective, with specific attention paid to products and services, finance, non–moveable physical assets, global communication and people.
Advertising and promotion for products and services are one of the most important drivers for the development of the Internet. Standards and laws are developing at a very fast rate and on a global scale. Related access to the Internet is not too restrictive. Associated abuses deal with the transfer of intellectual property, infringement of copyrights and outdated customs laws.
Movement of financial assets is still restricted by governmental regulation, protection and tax laws. Through credit card and international payment systems, the infrastructure is in place to reduce the legal burden when using the Internet for such transactions. Related legal issues circle around security and abuse for personal gain.
Non-moveable physical assets, such as the use and ownership of property, have deep roots in legal systems around the globe. This includes the use and misuse of natural resources, such as water, air and earth. Here, social media has the largest opportunity to drive improvement to influence global actions that are supported by global legal agreements.
Global communication will be further enhanced by improved software and communication tools, as well as telecommunications equipment, with all of this being owned and operated mostly by private enterprises. This will reduce the power of governments and force these institutions to create legal structures on a larger, regional basis. This will be of increased benefit to people.
Also, the use of social media will speed up the movement of people around the globe. Due to language, cultural and religious differences, there is relatively little cross–border employment at this time. Here, social media has its largest challenge, but this is also an opportunity to bring related legal systems and justice closer to a common denominator.
References
Bekri, D., Dunn, B., Oguzertem, I., Su, Y., Upreti, S. Harnessing Social Media Tools to Fight Corruption, Department of International Development at the London School of Economics and Political Science MSc Development. May: Management; 2011.
Craig, P. Formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law: an analytical framework. Public Law. 467, 1997.
Deibert, R. International Plug ‘n Play? Citizen Activism, the Internet, and Global Public Policy. International Studies Perspectives; 2000.
Kelly S., Cook S., eds. Freedom On The Net, A Global Assessment Of Internet And Digital Media. Freedom House, 2011.
Sheppard, N. The government is monitoring Facebook and Twitter. News Busters, http://newsbusters. org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/14/government-monitoring-facebook-twitter, 2009. [(accessed on 30 March 2011)].
A/RES/61/39, A/RES/62/70, A/RES/63/128
World Justice Project. World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, 2011.
Zomerman, M., Lyer, A. Introduction to the Social and Psychological Dynamics of Collective Action. Journal of Social Issues. 2009; 65:4.