A multidisciplinary, multinational movement to advance the rule of law for communities of opportunity and equity
The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index® 2011
Mark David Agrast Juan Carlos Botero Alejandro Ponce
The World Justice Project The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index® 2011
Mark David Agrast Juan Carlos Botero Alejandro Ponce
The World Justice Project
Board of Directors: Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad, Emil Constantinescu, Ashraf Ghani, William C. Hubbard, Mondli Makhanya, William H. Neukom, Ellen Gracie Northfleet, James R. Silkenat.
Officers: William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the Board; William H. Neukom, President and Chief Executive Officer; Deborah Enix-Ross, Vice President; Suzanne E. Gilbert, Vice President; James R. Silkenat, Vice President; Lawrence B. Bailey, Secretary; Roderick B. Mathews, Treasurer; Gerold W. Libby, General Counsel.
Executive Director: Hongxia Liu.
Rule of Law Index 2011 Team: Mark David Agrast, Chair; Juan Carlos Botero, Director; Alejandro Ponce, Senior Economist; Joel Martinez; Christine S. Pratt; Oussama Bouchebti; Kelly Roberts; Chantal V. Bright; Juan Manuel Botero; Nathan Menon; Raymond Webster; Chelsea Jaetzold; Claros Morean; Elsa Khwaja; Kristina Fridman. Consultants: Jose Caballero and Dounia Bennani.
______
The WJP Rule of Law Index® 2011 report was made possible by generous support from:
The Neukom Family Foundation, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and LexisNexis.
And from GE Foundation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy, Oak Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Allen & Overy Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Chase Family Philanthropic Fund, Microsoft Corporation, LexisNexis, General Electric Company, Intel Corporation, The Boeing Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., HP, McKinsey & Company, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Texas Instruments, Inc., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; Viacom International, Inc., K & L Gates; Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Winston & Strawn LLP, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, White & Case LLP, Allen & Overy LLP, Hunton & Williams, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stower, Mason, Hayes+Curran, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Garrigues LLP, Troutman Sanders LLP, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Turner Freeman Lawyers, Cochingyan & Peralta Law Offices, SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan, Major, Lindsey & Africa, Irish Aid, American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association Section of Health Law, American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property, American Bar Association Section of International Law, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and individual supporters listed in the last section of this report.
______ISBN 978-0-615-51219-8
Copyright 2011 by The World Justice Project. The WJP Rule of Law Index and The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index are trademarks of The World Justice Project. All rights reserved. Requests to reproduce this document should be sent to Juan C. Botero, the World Justice Project, 740 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005 U.S.A. E-mail:[email protected]
Graphic design: Joshua Steele and Jonathan Kerr.
Suggested citation: Agrast, M., Botero, J., Ponce, A., WJP Rule of Law Index 2011. Washington, D.C.: The World Justice Project.
Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1
Part I: Constructing the WJP Rule of Law Index ...... 5
Part II: The Rule of Law Around the World ...... 19
Regional Highlights ...... 21
Country Profiles ...... 39
Data Tables ...... 107
Data Notes ...... 117
Part III: Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index ...... 123
Part IV: Contributing Experts ...... 131
Part V: Acknowledgements ...... 147
About The World Justice Project ...... 153 Executive Summary
can access public services without the need to bribe a government officer; whether a basic dispute among neighbors or companies can be peacefully and cost-effectively resolved by an independent adjudicator; and whether people can conduct their Executive Summary daily activities without fear of crime or police abuse. The Index provides new data on the following nine dimensions of the rule of law: “The rule of law is the foundation for communities of opportunity and equity—it is the predicate for » Limited government powers the eradication of poverty, violence, corruption, » Absence of corruption pandemics, and other threats to civil society.” » Order and security William H. Neukom, Founder, President and » Fundamental rights CEO of the World Justice Project » Open government » Advancing the rule of law around the world is the Effective regulatory enforcement central goal of the World Justice Project (WJP). » Access to civil justice Establishing the rule of law is fundamental to » Effective criminal justice achieving communities of opportunity and equity— » Informal justice communities that offer sustainable economic development, accountable government, and respect These nine factors are further disaggregated into 52 for fundamental rights. Without the rule of law, sub-factors. The scores of these sub-factors are built medicines do not reach health facilities due to from over 400 variables drawn from assessments of corruption; women in rural areas remain unaware of the general public (1,000 respondents per country) their rights; people are killed in criminal violence; and local legal experts1. The outcome of this exercise and firms’ costs increase because of expropriation is one of the world’s most comprehensive data sets risk. The rule of law is the cornerstone to improving measuring the extent to which countries adhere to public health, safeguarding participation, ensuring the rule of law—not in theory but in practice. security, and fighting poverty.
The WJP Rule of Law Index® is an innovative quantitative assessment tool designed to offer Defining the rule of law a comprehensive picture of the extent to which As used by the World Justice Project, the rule of law countries adhere to the rule of law, not in theory, but refers to a rules-based system in which the following in practice. This report is the second in an annual four universal principles are upheld: series.
Indices and indicators are very useful tools. The » The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law. systematic tracking of infant mortality rates, for instance, has greatly contributed to improving health » The laws are clear, publicized, stable, outcomes around the globe. In a similar fashion, and fair, and protect fundamental rights, the WJP Rule of Law Index monitors the health including the security of persons and of a country’s institutional environment—such property. as whether government officials are accountable » The process by which the laws are enacted, under the law, and whether legal institutions protect administered, and enforced is accessible, fundamental rights and allow ordinary people access fair, and efficient. to justice. » Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers The WJP Rule of Law Index who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the The WJP Rule of Law Index presents a makeup of the communities they serve. comprehensive set of indicators on the rule of law from the perspective of the ordinary person. It examines practical situations in which a rule of law deficit may affect the daily lives of ordinary people. 1 We are grateful for the generous engagement of the over 2,000 academics and practitioners around the world who contributed their time and expertise, and the For instance, the Index evaluates whether citizens 66,000 individuals who participated in the general population poll.
1 WJP Rule of Law Index
These principles are derived from international taking the “temperature” of the rule of law in the sources that enjoy broad acceptance across countries countries under study, it does not provide a full with differing social, cultural, economic, and diagnosis or dictate concrete priorities for action. No political systems, and incorporate both substantive single index can convey a full picture of a country’s and procedural elements. situation. Rule of law analysis requires a careful consideration of multiple dimensions—which may vary from country to country—and a combination Uses of the Index of sources, instruments, and methods. The WJP Rule of Law Index is an instrument for This report introduces the framework of the WJP strengthening the rule of law. It offers reliable, Rule of Law Index and summarizes the results and independent, and disaggregated information for lessons learned during the WJP’s implementation policy makers, businesses, non-governmental of the Index in 66 jurisdictions. It is anticipated organizations, and other constituencies to: that global coverage will expand to 100 countries in 2012. » Assess a nation’s adherence to the rule of law in practice; More than half of the countries included in the 2011 report were also indexed in 2010. Country » Identify a nation’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to similarly profiles for these countries are based chiefly on new situated countries; and data collected during the second quarter of 2011. » Track changes over time. However, because country scores are normalized across the entire sample of indexed countries, While the WJP Rule of Law Index enters a crowded individual country findings in the 2011 report are field of indicators on different aspects of the rule of not comparable to the previous year’s results. law, it has a number of features that set it apart: The Index 2011 report introduces four conceptual and methodological changes. First, factor 3 (Clear, » Comprehensiveness. While other Publicized and Stable Laws) and factor 6 (Open indices cover aspects of the rule of Government) from the 2010 report have been merged law, they do not yield a full picture of rule of law compliance. to form factor 5 of the current report. The sub-factors of factor 2 (Absence of Corruption) have been » New data. The Index findings redefined to their current status. Third, for the first are based almost entirely on new time data has been collected on transition of power, data collected by the WJP from independent sources. This contrasts civil conflict, freedom of assembly and association, it with other indices based on data due process in administrative proceedings, and aggregated from third-party sources, criminal recidivism. Finally, in the measurement of or on sources that are self-reported factor 3 (Order and Security) a few variables from by governments or other interested third-party sources have been incorporated into the parties. Index. Changes introduced in 2011 are explained in » Rule of law in practice. The Index the Data Notes section of this report, and further measures adherence to the rule of law methodological details are provided in Botero and by looking not to the laws as written Ponce, “Measuring the Rule of Law”, 2011, available but at how they are actually applied in practice. online at www.worldjusticeproject.org. » Anchored in actual experiences. The The Index is intended for a broad audience of Index combines expert opinion with policy-makers, civil society, practitioners, academics, rigorous polling of the general public to ensure that the findings reflect and other constituencies. We hope that over time, the conditions experienced by the this tool will help identify strengths and weaknesses population, including marginalized in each country under review and encourage policy sectors of society. choices that advance the rule of law. » Action oriented. Findings are presented in disaggregated form, About the World Justice Project identifying strong and weak performers across the nine rule of law The World Justice Project (WJP) is a multinational dimensions examined in each country. and multidisciplinary effort to strengthen the rule of law throughout the world. It is based on two Despite these methodological strengths, the complementary premises: first, the rule of law is findings should be interpreted in light of certain the foundation for communities of opportunity and inherent limitations. While the Index is helpful in equity; and second, multidisciplinary collaboration
2 is the most effective way to advance the rule of law. The WJP’s work is being carried out through three complementary and mutually reinforcing program areas: Mainstreaming, the Rule of Law Index, and Scholarship. The Project’s efforts are dedicated to increasing public awareness about the concept and practice of the rule of law, developing practical programs in support of the rule of law at the community level, and stimulating government reforms that enhance the rule of law. Further details are provided in the last section of this report and at www.worldjusticeproject.org. Part I: Constructing the WJP Rule of Law Index
Mark David Agrast1, Juan Carlos Botero, and Alejandro Ponce
The World Justice Project2
1 Mr. Agrast did not participate in the collection, analysis, or review of the data and results (Part II of this report). 2 This section builds on previous work developed in collaboration with Claudia J. Dumas. Constructing the Index
Constructing the WJP Rule of Law Index
The WJP Rule of Law Index® is an innovative quantitative assessment tool designed to offer a detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice.
The Index introduces new indicators on the rule of law from the perspective of the ordinary person. It considers practical situations in which a rule of law deficit may affect the daily lives of people. For instance, whether people can access public services without the need to bribe a government officer; whether a basic dispute among neighbors or companies can be peacefully and cost-effectively resolved by an independent adjudicator; or whether people can conduct their daily activities without fear of crime or police abuse.
The Index provides new data on the following nine dimensions of the rule of law: limited government powers; absence of corruption; order and security; fundamental rights; open government; effective regulatory enforcement; access to civil justice; effective criminal justice; and informal justice. These nine factors are further disaggregated into 52 sub-factors.
The Index’s rankings and scores are the product of a rigorous data collection and aggregation process. Data comes from a global poll of the general public and detailed questionnaires administered to local experts. To date, over 2,000 experts and 66,000 other individuals from around the world have participated in this project.
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 is the second
7 WJP Rule of Law Index
report in an annual series. It builds on four years current report introduces a slightly modified version of development, intensive consultation, and vetting of the Index presented in 2010 for 66 countries, with academics, practitioners, and community including updated data for the 35 countries indexed leaders from over 100 countries and 17 professional in 2010 plus new data for 31 additional countries. disciplines. Version 1.0 of the Index was presented We anticipate that the Index will expand to cover at the first World Justice Forum in 2008, including 100 countries in 2012. findings from a pilot conducted in six countries. Version 2.0 was presented at the second World It should be emphasized that the Index is intended Justice Forum in 2009, featuring preliminary to be applied in countries with vastly differing social, findings for 35 countries. Version 3.0 was launched cultural, economic, and political systems. No society in October 2010, featuring a new version of the Index has ever attained—let alone sustained—a perfect and country profiles for the same 35 countries. The realization of the rule of law. Every nation faces the
Box 1. The rule of law in everyday life % ]% (c) Public health 0 5 % ] 7 ] 7 7 % ]% % % 7 0 7 7 ] 7 0 - 5 5 5 5 5 5 % 7 0 7V % ] 7 % 0 7 0 5 @5 ] 7 % 7 % % 75 ] 0 7 - % ] ] @ 7 0 ) %]] @ 7 % ] 7 ^ % _ 5 7 % 5 % 5 7 ] ] 0 _% 7 % ] ] 7 ] ] =% - +0 % 7 7 5 % 3 % % % 0 7 7 0 ] % 7 ] ] % 0 =% ] 7 =% 6 % 7 % @ ] % 5 0 to businessmen, builders, consumers, doctors, and ]% 5 ] % ] ] , ; = % +0 7 7 @ 6 ] % (a) Business environment Imagine an investor seeking to commit resources % ] 7 @ Figure 1: Corruption in public health services 0 % 7 %] ] 5 50 Q ] ] ] 7 ]% ] ] 7 R 5 0 ^ % %] 7 0 _ % 2% % 0 % @ 0 35%
6] ] 5 % 0 30% 0 5 0 ; % ] 7 5 % ] 25% % % ] ] 7 0 % 20% 7 0 15% (b) Public works 10% 3 % % % _% 7 ]% @ 7 5 0 5% witnessed devastating earthquakes causing buildings 0% ] 7 5 Low Lower-middle Upper-middle High 0 0 income income income income ] % % % 7 0 R ] @ % ] % Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database
8 Constructing the Index perpetual challenge of building and renewing the formal, procedural rules, and a “thick” conception structures, institutions, and norms that can support that includes substantive characteristics, such as and sustain a rule of law culture. self-government and various fundamental rights and freedoms. On one hand, it was felt that if the Index was to have utility and gain wide acceptance, Defining the rule of law the definition must be broadly applicable to many types of social and political systems, including some The design of the Index began with the effort to which lack many of the features that characterize formulate a set of principles that would constitute democratic nations. On the other hand, it was a working definition of the rule of law. Having recognized that the rule of law must be more than reviewed the extensive literature on the subject, the merely a system of rules—that indeed, a system of project team was profoundly conscious of the many positive law that fails to respect core human rights challenges such an effort entails. Among other guaranteed under international law is at best “rule by things, it was recognized that for the principles law”, and does not deserve to be called a rule of law to be broadly accepted, they must be culturally system. In the words of Arthur Chaskalson, former universal, avoiding Western, Anglo-American, Chief Justice of South Africa, or other biases. Thus, the principles were derived to the greatest extent possible from established [T]he apartheid government, its officers and agents international standards and norms, and informed were accountable in accordance with the laws; the by a thorough review of national constitutions and laws were clear; publicized, and stable, and were scholarly literature. The principles and the factors upheld by law enforcement officials and judges. derived from them were tested and refined through What was missing was the substantive component extensive consultations with experts from around of the rule of law. The process by which the laws were the world to ensure, among other things, their made was not fair (only whites, a minority of the cultural competence. population, had the vote). And the laws themselves were not fair. They institutionalized discrimination, vested broad discretionary powers in the executive, Box 2. Four Universal Principles of the and failed to protect fundamental rights. Without Rule of Law a substantive content there would be no answer to 3 % @ % the criticism, sometimes voiced, that the rule of law % % 0 ] ] is ‘an empty vessel into which any law could be poured’. 3 0 % % The four “universal principles” that emerged from 3 5 ]% 5 5 our deliberations are featured in box 2. ] % 5 % % 7 ] ] ] 7 These principles represent an effort to strike a 3 ] 7 5 balance between thinner and thicker conceptions of 5 the rule of law, incorporating both substantive and 5 =% ] 0 7 ] 5 procedural elements—a decision which was broadly ] 5 =% 5 7 endorsed by the many international experts with ] 0 =% whom we have consulted. A few examples may be % % 5 0 _% % 5 instructive: @ %] % 7 0 » The principles address the extent to which a country provides for fair participation in the making of the laws—certainly an essential attribute of self-government. But It also was recognized that any effort to define the principles do not address the further question of whether the laws are enacted the rule of law must grapple with the distinction by democratically elected representatives. between what scholars call a “thin” or minimalist conception of the rule of law that focuses on » The principles address the extent to which
9 WJP Rule of Law Index
a country protects fundamental human Accountable Government (Factors 1 and 2) rights. But given the impossibility of assessing adherence to the full panoply of civil, political, economic, social, cultural, The first principle measures government and environmental rights recognized in accountability by means of two factors: the Universal Declaration, the principles treat a more modest menu of rights, primarily civil and political, that are » Factor 1: Limited Government Powers firmly established under international law » Factor 2: Absence of Corruption and bear the most immediate relationship to rule of law concerns. » The principles address access to justice, but chiefly in terms of access to legal Limited Government Powers representation and access to the courts, rather than in the “thicker” sense in The first factor measures the extent to which those which access to justice is sometimes seen as synonymous with broad who govern are subject to law. It comprises the legal empowerment of the poor and means, both constitutional and institutional, by disfranchised. Access to justice in this more limited sense is a critical cornerstone which the powers of the government and its officials for the implementation of policies and and agents are limited and by which they are held rights that empower the poor. accountable under the law. It also includes non- governmental checks on the government’s power, In limiting the scope of the principles in this fashion, such as a free and independent press. we do not wish to suggest any disagreement with a more robust and inclusive vision of self-government, This factor is particularly difficult to measure in a fundamental rights, or access to justice, all of which standardized manner across countries, since there are addressed in other important and influential is no single formula for the proper distribution of indices, as well as in various papers developed by powers among organs of the government to ensure WJP scholars. Indeed, it is among the premises of that each is held in check. Governmental checks take the project as a whole that a healthy rule of law is many forms; they do not operate solely in systems critical to advancing such goals. marked by a formal separation of powers, nor are they necessarily codified in law. What is essential Moreover, the WJP’s conception of the rule of law is is that authority is distributed, whether by formal not incompatible with the notion that these universal rules or by convention, in a manner that ensures principles may interact with each other in multiple that no single organ of government has the practical ways. For example, concrete improvements in one ability to exercise unchecked power.1 dimension of the rule of law may affect societies in more than one way, depending on the prevailing The factor measures the effective limitation cultural and institutional environments. It is our of government powers in the fundamental hope that by providing data on nine independent law; institutional checks on government power dimensions of the rule of law, the Index will become by the legislature, the judiciary and independent a useful tool for academics and other constituencies auditing and review agencies2; effective sanctions for to further our understanding of these interactions. misconduct of government officers and agents in all branches of government; non-governmental checks on government power3; and whether transfers of power The 2011 WJP Rule occur in accordance with the law. of Law Index 1 The Index does not address the further question of whether the laws are enacted by This new version of the Index is composed of nine democratically elected representatives. factors derived from the WJP’s universal principles. 2 This includes a wide range of institutions, from financial comptrollers and auditing agencies to the diverse array of entities that monitor human rights compliance (e.g. These factors are divided into 52 sub-factors which “Human Rights Defender”, “Ombudsman”, “People’s Advocate”, “Defensor del incorporate essential elements of the rule of law. Pueblo”, “Ouvidoria”, “Human Rights Commissioner”, “Õiguskantsler”, “Médiateur de la République”, “Citizen’s Advocate”, “Avocatul Poporului”). In some countries these functions are performed by judges or other state officials; in others, they are carried out by independent agencies. 3 This includes the media, citizen activism, and civic and political organizations.
10 Constructing the Index
WJP Rule of Law Index Factor 1: Limited Government Powers Q 0 ] % Q 0 ] 0 7 7 % Q 0 ] 0 7 7 =% 7 Q 0 ] 0 7 7 ] % 0 Q 0 % Q 0 ] 0 7 7 R 0 @ 3 ] % Factor 2: Absence of Corruption Q 0 6 % 0 % ]% ] 0 Q 0 =% % ]% ] 0 Q 0 ] 7 % ]% ] 0 Q 0 % % ]% ] 0 Factor 3: Order and Security 0 7 0 0 7 ] 0 ] 0 Factor 4: Fundamental Rights +_% 0 7 % 3 % 7 ] 0 7 % V% ] % 0 7 % W ] 6] 0 7 % W 0 7 % 3 ] 0 7 0 7 % W 7 0 7 % W% 0 7 % Factor 5: Open Government 3 ] ]% 3 ]% 7 3 3 ] ]% ] ] 0 7 % ) 0 ]% ) 0 ]% Factor 6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement Q 0 % 0 7 Q 0 % ]] % ] ] % 5 0 ] % % % 7 V% ] ] 0 ] 3 Q 0 6] ] ] ] 7 % _% ] Factor 7: Access to Civil Justice ] 0 ] 0 ] ] 0 % 0 =% 0 =% %] 0 =% ] ] 0 % 0 =% % = % 7 0 =% 0 7 5VZ 7 5 ] 5 0 Factor 8: Effective Criminal Justice 0 7 0 0 7 7 =% 3 7 0 % 0 3 =% 7 ] 3 =% 7 %] 3 =% 7 ] ] 0 % 3 =% 7 % % ] Factor 9: Informal Justice =% 7 0 =% ] ] ] % =% ] ] %
11 WJP Rule of Law Index
Absence of Corruption Fundamental Rights The second factor measures the absence of The fourth factor measures protection of corruption. The Index considers three forms of fundamental human rights. It recognizes that the corruption: bribery, improper influence by public rule of law must be more than merely a system of or private interests, and misappropriation of public rules—that indeed, a system of positive law that funds or other resources. fails to respect core human rights guaranteed and established under international law is at best “rule These three forms of corruption are examined with by law”, and does not deserve to be called a rule of respect to government officers in the executive branch law system. (including the police and the military), and those in the judiciary and the legislature. Our instruments Sixty years after its adoption, the Universal take into account a wide range of possible situations Declaration remains the touchstone for determining in which corruption, from petty bribery to major which rights may be considered fundamental, kinds of fraud, can occur, including the provision even as newer rights continue to emerge and gain of public services, procurement procedures, and acceptance. At WJP regional meetings conducted in administrative enforcement of environmental, labor, 2008 and 2009, there was spirited discussion over and health and safety regulations, among others. which rights should be encompassed within the Index. Many urged that the list be confined to civil and political rights, particularly freedom of thought Security and Fundamental and opinion, which bear an essential relationship to Rights (Factors 3 and 4) the rule of law itself. Others argued for a broader treatment that would encompass social, economic, The second principle encompasses two factors: and cultural rights.
» Factor 3: Order and Security While the debate may never be fully resolved, it was » Factor 4: Fundamental Rights determined as a practical matter that since there are many other indices that address human rights in all Order and Security of these dimensions, and as it would be impossible The third factor measures how well the society for the Index to assess adherence to the full range assures the security of persons and property. It of rights, the Index should focus on a relatively encompasses three dimensions: absence of crime4; modest menu of rights that are firmly established absence of civil conflict, including terrorism and under international law and are most closely armed conflict; and absence of violence as a socially related to rule of law concerns. Accordingly, factor acceptable means to redress personal grievances. 4 covers effective enforcement of laws that ensure equal protection7; freedom of thought, religion, and A few variables from third-party sources have been expression; freedom of assembly and association; incorporated into this factor in order to measure fundamental labor rights (including the right to structural rule of law situations that may not be collective bargaining, the prohibition of forced and 8 captured through general population polls or expert child labor, and the elimination of discrimination) ;
opinion. These include, among others, the number 7 The laws can be fair only if they do not make arbitrary or irrational distinctions based of events and deaths resulting from high-casualty on economic or social status—the latter defined to include race, color, ethnic or social origin, caste, nationality, alienage, religion, language, political opinion or affiliation, terrorist bombings5, the number of battle-related gender, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity, age, and disability. It must be acknowledged that for some societies, including some traditional societies, deaths, and the number of casualties resulting from certain of these categories may be problematic. In addition, there may be differences “one-sided violence”.6 These indicators are proxies both within and among such societies as to whether a given distinction is arbitrary or irrational. Despite these difficulties, it was determined that only an inclusive list would for civil conflict (sub-factor 3.2). accord full respect to the principles of equality and non-discrimination embodied in the Universal Declaration and emerging norms of international law. 8 Sub-factor 4.8 includes the four fundamental principles recognized by the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work of 1998: (1) the freedom 4 This factor focuses on conventional crime, including homicide, kidnapping, burglary, of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; (2) and theft. the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor; (3) the effective abolition 5 Source: Center for Systemic Peace. of child labor; and (4) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment 6 Source: Uppsala Conflict Data Program. and occupation.
12 Constructing the Index the rights to privacy and religion; the right to life enforced. This includes the absence of improper and security of the person9; and due process of law influence by public officials or private interests; and the rights of the accused.10 adherence to administrative procedures that are fair, consistent, and predictable; and freedom from Open Government and Effective government taking of private property without Regulatory Enforcement (Factors 5 and 6) adequate compensation. The third principle includes two factors: Access to Justice (Factors 7, 8, and 9)
» Factor 5: Open Government The fourth and final principle measures access to » Factor 6: Effective Regulatory justice by means of three factors: Enforcement
» Factor 7: Access to Civil Justice Factors 5 and 6 concern the extent to which the » Factor 8: Effective Criminal Justice process by which the laws are enacted, administered, » Factor 9: Informal Justice and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
These factors measure whether ordinary people can Factor 5 measures open government, which includes peacefully and effectively resolve their grievances in at its core the opportunity to know what the law is accordance with generally accepted social norms, and what conduct is permitted and prohibited. This rather than resorting to violence or self-help. requires that the law be comprehensible and its meaning sufficiently clear, publicized, and explained Access to civil justice requires that the system to the general public in plain language, for them to be affordable, effective, impartial, and culturally be able to abide by it. This is one of the most basic competent. Effective criminal justice systems are preconditions for achieving and maintaining a rule capable of investigating and adjudicating criminal of law society capable of guaranteeing public order, offences impartially and effectively, while ensuring personal security, and fundamental rights. that the rights of suspects and victims are protected. Open government also encompasses the opportunity Impartiality includes absence of arbitrary or to participate in the process by which the laws are irrational distinctions based on social or economic made and administered. Among the indicia of status, and other forms of bias, as well as decisions participation are: whether people have the right that are free of improper influence by public officials to petition the government; whether proceedings or private interests. are held with timely notice and are open to the public; and whether drafts of legislation, records Accessibility includes general awareness of available of legislative and administrative proceedings, and remedies; availability and affordability of legal other kinds of official information are available to advice and representation; and absence of excessive the public. or unreasonable fees, procedural hurdles, and other barriers to access to formal dispute resolution Factor 6 concerns the fair and effective enforcement systems. Access to justice also requires fair and of administrative regulations. The Index does not effective enforcement. measure the presence or absence of particular forms of regulation or examine how much regulation of Finally, factor 9 concerns the role played in many a particular activity is appropriate. Rather, it seeks countries by “informal” systems of law – including to assess how well regulations are implemented and traditional, tribal, and religious courts, as well as
9 Sub-factor 4.2 concerns police brutality and other abuses—including arbitrary community based systems – in resolving disputes. detention, torture and extrajudicial execution—perpetrated by agents of the state These systems often play a large role in cultures against criminal suspects, political dissidents, members of the media, and ordinary people. in which formal legal institutions fail to provide 10 This includes the presumption of innocence, illegal detention, abusive treatment of effective remedies for large segments of the suspects and detainees, access to legal counsel and translators, opportunity to challenge evidence, and prisoners’ rights.
13 WJP Rule of Law Index
population.11 Box 3: The WJP Rule of Law Index Measuring the rule of law methodology in a nutshell 3 ] % Z% , 6 7 The WJP Rule of Law Index is a first attempt to % ] quantify systematically and comprehensively a set 3 0 ] ] % @ of rule of law outcomes by linking the conceptual % 6; % R definitions to concrete questions. These questions 5 % 5 ] 5 % 7 % are then administered to a representative sample of the general public, and to local experts, and then are 3 6 0 ] 0 _% 6; ] % @5 analyzed and cross-checked pursuant to a rigorous 6] ]% triangulation methodology. The outcome of this Questionnaires were translated into several languages exercise is one of the world’s most comprehensive ] 7 % 6] 3 % ] 6 data sets regarding adherence to the rule of law in % practice. 3 5 0 5 ] 6] ] % 7 ] _% ] ; _% 5 Approach 0 ] ] ] % ] R ] % 0 7 The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 measures outcomes ]% % 6 5 rather than inputs. More specifically, our aim is to % % 0 7 provide a picture of where countries stand with 3 _% 6] regard to a number of widely accepted outcomes % that rule of law societies seek to achieve, as opposed 3 6 ]] % R to measuring the institutional means, such as the legal and regulatory frameworks, by which a given 3 6 % % 0 R ] ] society may seek to attain them. Some examples of _% % outcomes measured by the Index include respect 0 % for fundamental rights, absence of corruption, and % % 7 7 access to justice. Examples of inputs might include ] 0 0 % ^ 6] the number of courts, the number of police officers, ]% _ and the judicial budget. ] 5 % R % ] 0 Data % @ % The WJP’s Rule of Law Index methodology utilizes 3 % = 7 two main sources of new data: (i) a general population ] W 6 ] 5 6 poll (GPP), designed by The World Justice Project and R @ % R conducted by leading local polling companies using a R] 7 % 5 % _% 0 _% 0 representative sample of 1,000 respondents in three cities per country; and (ii) a qualified respondents’ 5 0 7 7 % 7 questionnaire (QRQ) consisting of closed ended + 5]] questions completed by in-country practitioners and +% ] ; Z 5 academics with expertise in civil and commercial law, collaboration with the Index team, to assess the 7 % criminal justice, labor law, and public health. W 75 % 7 ] 5
11 Significant effort has been devoted during the last two years to collecting data on 5 % ] informal justice in a dozen countries. Nonetheless, the complexities of these systems ] and the difficulties of measuring their fairness and effectiveness in a manner that is both systematic and comparable across countries, make assessments extraordinarily challenging. A preliminary overview of informal justice will be included in the WJP Rule of Law Index 2012.
14 Constructing the Index
Using the WJP Rule Box 4: Law in practice vs. law on books of Law Index 0 % % 0 % 75 ] 0 % The WJP Rule of Law Index is intended for % 7; % ^ 0 5 % 7 @ multiple audiences. It is designed to offer a reliable 7 ^de jure) but at how and independent data source for policy makers, 7 % 7 ] ] businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and 6] 7 % = other constituencies to: (de facto_ @ 5 ; Z% , 6 7 % 7 % ] » Assess a nation’s adherence to the rule of law in practice, as perceived and experienced by the average person; » Identify a nation’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to similarly The QRQ is administered on a yearly basis in each situated countries; and surveyed country, and the GPP is carried out every » Track changes over time. three years. In addition, some variables from third- party sources have been incorporated into this While other indices touch on various aspects of the version of the Index, to capture certain structural rule of law, the WJP Rule of Law Index has new rule of law situations such as terrorist bombings features that set it apart: and battle-related deaths that may not be captured through general population polls or expert opinion. » Comprehensiveness. While existing indices cover aspects of the rule of law, Finally, existing domestic and international data they do not yield a full picture of rule of sources and legal resources is used to cross-check law compliance. the findings. » New data. The Index findings are based almost entirely on new data collected by the WJP from independent sources. The Index comprises more than 400 different This contrasts with indices based on variables, organized into nine factors and 52 sub- data aggregated from third-party sources, or on sources that are self-reported by factors. These variables are aggregated and compiled governments or other interested parties. into numerical scores. » Rule of law in practice. The Index measures adherence to the rule of law by To date, over 2,000 experts from 66 nations and looking not to the laws as written but to jurisdictions have contributed their knowledge and how they are actually applied. expertise to the Index. » Anchored in actual experiences. The Index combines expert opinion with rigorous polling of the general public In addition, over 66,000 individuals from these to ensure that the findings reflect the countries have participated in the general population conditions experienced by the population, including marginalized sectors of society. poll. The countries indexed in this volume are presented in Table 1. Data presented in this volume » Action oriented. Findings are presented in disaggregated form, identifying areas was collected and analyzed in the second quarter of strength and weakness across the nine of 2011, with the exception of general population rule of law dimensions examined in each data for the initial 35 countries, which was collected country. during the fall of 2009. A detailed description of the process by which data is collected and the rule These features make the Index a powerful tool that of law is measured is provided in the final section of can inform policy debates in and across countries. this report, and in Botero and Ponce (2011). However, the Index’s findings must be interpreted in light of certain inherent limitations.
1. The WJP Rule of Law Index does not provide specific recipes or identify priorities for reform. 2. The Index data is not intended to establish
15 WJP Rule of Law Index
causation or to ascertain the complex Table 1: Countries Indexed in 2011 relationship among different rule of law % 7 Z , 0 dimensions in various countries. Albania + +% ] 5 ]] Argentina , 5 ]] 3. The Index’s rankings and scores are Australia + 5 ^ the product of a very rigorous data Austria +% ] ] 5 ^ collection and aggregation methodology. Bangladesh South Asia , Nonetheless, as with all measures, they are Belgium +% ] ] 5 ^ 12 subject to measurement error. Bolivia , 5 , 4. Indices and indicators are subject to 2 , 5 ]] potential abuse and misinterpretation. Bulgaria + +% ] 5 ]] Once released to the public, they can take Cambodia + 5 , on a life of their own and be used for Cameroon % R 5 , Canada +% ] ] 5 ^ purposes unanticipated by their creators. Chile , 5 ]] If data is taken out of context, it can China + 5 , lead to unintended or erroneous policy Colombia , 5 ]] decisions. Croatia + +% ] 5 ^ 5. Rule of law concepts measured by the Z ]% + +% ] 5 ^ Index may have different meanings V Z ]% , 5 ]] across countries. Users are encouraged El Salvador , 5 , to consult the specific definitions of the Estonia + +% ] 5 ^ + ] % R 5 , variables employed in the construction of W +% ] ] 5 ^ the Index, which are discussed in greater Q 7 +% ] ] 5 ^ detail in Botero and Ponce (2011). Q % R 5 , 6. The Index is generally intended to be used Q% , 5 , in combination with other instruments, ^ y 5Z5 + 5 ^ both quantitative and qualitative. Just as in India South Asia , the areas of health or economics no single Indonesia + 5 , index conveys a full picture of a country’s Iran + ] 5 ]] 7 +% ] ] 5 ^ situation. Policymaking in the area of Jamaica , 5 ]] rule of law requires careful consideration ] + 5 ^ of all relevant dimensions—which may Jordan + ] 5 , vary from country to country—and a y @ + +% ] 5 ]] combination of sources, instruments and y 7 % R 5 , methods. The Index does not provide a y7 7 + +% ] 5 , full diagnosis or dictate concrete priorities , + ] 5 ]] for action. , % R 5 , 7 + 5 ]] 7. Pursuant to the sensitivity analysis of the Mexico , 5 ]] Index data conducted in collaboration with Morocco + ] 5 , the Econometrics and Applied Statistics Netherlands +% ] ] 5 ^ Unit of the European Commission’s Joint New Zealand + 5 ^ Research Centre, confidence intervals have Nigeria % R 5 , been calculated for all figures included in ] 7 +% ] ] 5 ^ the WJP Rule of Law Index 2011. These Pakistan South Asia , confidence intervals and other relevant Peru , 5 ]] considerations regarding measurement ]] + 5 , error are reported in Saisana and Saltelli Poland + +% ] 5 ^ (2011) and Botero and Ponce (2011). Z + +% ] 5 ]] Z% + +% ] 5 ]] Senegal % R 5 , ] + 5 ^ % 5 % R 5 ]] % y + 5 ^ ] +% ] ] 5 ^ Sweden +% ] ] 5 ^ Thailand + 5 , 3% @ 7 + +% ] 5 ]] 5 + + ] 5 ^ % R 5 , @ + +% ] 5 , y +% ] ] 5 ^ +% ] ] 5 ^ % , 5 ]] Vietnam + 5 , Source: The World Bank
12 Users of the Index for policy debate who wish to have a sound understanding of its methodology are encouraged to review the following papers: a. Botero, J and Ponce, A. (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”. WJP Working Paper No. 1, available online at: www.worldjusticeproject.org b. Saisana, M and Saltelli, A. (2011) “Statistical Audit of the WJP Rule of Law Index”, available online at: www.worldjusticeproject.org
16 Constructing the Index
Complementarity with other WJP initiatives The Index’s development is highly integrated with other dimensions of the WJP. » The Index findings for a growing number of countries will be presented and discussed in detail at successive World Justice Forums and WJP regional conferences. » Many of the issues identified by the Index in various countries will become fertile areas for the design of rule of law programs by Forum participants. » The results of various WJP programs will be presented at each World Justice Forum, enabling a more detailed discussion of concrete issues covered by the Index. » Detailed discussions of Index findings at successive World Justice Forums and regional outreach meetings will generate useful information for further refinement of the Index methodology and measurement, as well as an opportunity to disseminate the results of both the Index and WJP programs. » WJP scholars will provide conceptual and methodological advice for the improvement and expansion of the Index, and the Index’s findings and data will be made available to researchers around the world.
Next steps This volume presents the results and lessons learned during the WJP’s implementation of the Index in 66 countries in 2011. The Index remains a work in progress, with the next steps including:
» Expanded coverage to include a total of 100 countries by 2012. » Publication of topic-specific reports and other comparative materials.
17 Part II: The Rule of Law Around the World
Juan Carlos Botero, Joel Martinez, Alejandro Ponce, and Christine S. Pratt The World Justice Project1
1 Country assessments are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the World Justice Project, or its Officers, Directors, and Honorary Chairs. Regional Trends
Regional Highlights
The following section provides an overview of regional trends revealed by the WJP Rule of Law Index® 2011 report, which covers 66 countries. This section also presents highlights for a number of countries in each of seven regions: Western Europe and North America, Latin America and the Caribbean, East Asia and Pacific, South Asia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Adherence to the rule of law varies widely around the world and appears to be positively correlated with per capita income. The average rankings for each region are shown in Table 2. The detailed rankings are shown in the data tables at the end of the report. Additional scores and rankings are available in Botero and Ponce [2011].
Western Europe and North America Countries in Western Europe and North America tend to outperform most other countries in all dimensions. These countries are characterized by relatively low levels of corruption, open and accountable governments, and effective criminal justice systems. The greatest weakness in Western Europe and North America appears to be related to the accessibility of the civil justice system, especially for marginalized segments of the population. In the area of access to legal counsel, for instance, Italy, Canada, the United States, and Norway rank 42nd, 54th, 50th, and 48th, respectively. These are areas that require attention from both policy makers and civil society to ensure that all people are able to benefit from the civil justice system. While protection of fundamental rights in this region is the highest in the world, police discrimination against foreigners and ethnic minorities remains an issue in need of attention in most countries. In most dimensions, countries in Western Europe obtain higher scores than the United States.
21 WJP Rule of Law Index
The country’s civil justice system ranks 2nd out of all The Nordic countries rank at the top in most countries, which is characterized by the affordability dimensions of the rule of law. Sweden ranks first of attorneys, accessibility and efficiency of courts, in three of eight areas -fundamental rights, open and lack of undue influence. Police discrimination government, and effective regulatory enforcement- against foreigners, however, is perceived to occur. and is located in the top five in seven of the eight categories. Sweden’s administrative agencies and Austria ranks among the top ten in all eight courts are rated among the most effective and dimensions of the rule of law. The country is ranked transparent in the world, and generally observe fourth out of the ten Western European countries fundamental rights. Norway also ranks first in covered by the Index in the following dimensions: three areas -government accountability, access to absence of corruption, order and security, respect civil justice, and effective criminal justice- and it for fundamental rights, and effectiveness of the places no lower than fifth in all but one of the rule criminal justice system. Although the country is of law indicators. Norway’s public institutions are very open, people in Austria face more difficulties in very strong. Access to justice is generally guaranteed accessing official documentation than do individuals to citizens in both countries, although access to in most developed nations, including the United affordable legal counsel remains limited, particularly States, Germany, and France. In addition, police for disadvantaged groups. Police discrimination discrimination against foreigners is perceived to be against foreigners and ethnic minorities is perceived significant. to be a problem in both countries. The United Kingdom is among the top countries The Netherlands ranks among the top three in three in the world in the areas of open government and categories -fundamental rights, open government, effective regulatory enforcement, ranking fourth and access to civil justice- and performs very well and sixth, respectively. It scores well on government in most of the other five dimensions measured by accountability (ranking ninth), and corruption is the Index. The overall regulatory environment is minimal. While the court system is independent and transparent and efficient. The country’s courts are free of undue influence, it is not as accessible and accessible and free of improper influence, with affordable as others in the region. The correctional criminal courts displaying an outstanding respect system underperforms its income-group and for due process of law, where they rank first in the regional peers. world. France performs well in all eight dimensions of Germany is one of the world’s leaders in many the rule of law. The country’s notable strengths dimensions of the rule of law. Government include absence of corruption and an independent, accountability is strong (ranking 6th out of 66 accessible, and affordable civil justice system. countries) and corruption is minimal (ranking 12th). Nonetheless, judicial delays are a weakness in both
Table 2: Average rankings by region Eastern Western Middle Sub- , East Asia +% ] +% ] + W Saharan 5 South Asia Central ] North 5 Caribbean Asia America 5 , Q 0 51 30 50 9 39 39 48 5 %] 52 26 40 13 44 38 58 ) % 7 58 21 29 14 53 34 65 W% Z 52 32 33 12 35 56 48 )] Q 0 60 26 40 11 36 41 54 Z % 7 + 53 32 38 11 38 29 58 5 0 % 43 41 34 10 38 28 62 + 0 % 46 24 38 12 50 39 40 Source: WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database
22 Regional Trends
civil and criminal justice, where cases can take decisions, police discrimination against foreigners, years to resolve. France also obtains high marks and deficient legal security, are also sources of in the areas of effective regulatory enforcement concern. On the other hand, Italy earns high marks and protection of fundamental rights, even though in the areas of judicial independence and protection police discrimination against ethnic and religious of fundamental rights. minorities is perceived to be a problem. The United States obtains high marks in most Belgium obtains high marks in all eight categories. dimensions of the rule of law. The country stands Belgium stands out for its high scores in government out for its well-functioning system of checks and accountability and protection of fundamental rights, balances and for its good results in guaranteeing even though police discrimination against foreigners civil liberties among its people, including the rights is perceived to be significant. The judicial system of association, opinion and expression, religion, and is independent, accessible, and affordable, which petition. The civil justice system is independent and contrasts with the relatively poor performance of free of undue influence, but it remains inaccessible other high-income countries. However, judicial to disadvantaged groups (ranking 21st). Legal delays in civil cases are a source of concern. In assistance is expensive or unavailable (ranking 52nd), the areas of effective criminal justice and effective and the gap between rich and poor individuals in regulatory enforcement, Belgium lags behind most terms of both actual use of and satisfaction with the regional and income-group peers. civil courts system remains significant (see box 5). In addition, there is a general perception that ethnic Spain obtains high marks in guaranteeing minorities and foreigners receive unequal treatment fundamental rights, particularly in protecting labor from the police and the courts. rights and preventing interference in its citizens’ privacy, as well as in the areas of government Canada is among the top ten countries in the world in accountability, absence of corruption, access to four categories of the rule of law: limited government legal counsel, and respect for due process of law. powers, order and security, open government, and However, Spain lags behind its regional and effective criminal justice. Corruption is minimal income-group peers in providing mechanisms for and the country generally observes fundamental public participation - including the right to petition rights. However, discrimination against immigrants public authorities - and in effectively enforcing and the poor remains a source of concern (ranking government regulations, where it ranks second to 30th). Canada’s lowest scores are in the area of access last in the Western Europe and North America to civil justice — where it ranks 16th out of the region. Judicial delays, ineffective enforcement of 23 high income countries indexed this year. This civil justice, and police discrimination are also areas can be partially explained by shortcomings in the in need of attention. affordability of legal advice and representation, and the lengthy duration of civil cases. Italy is the weakest performer of the countries in the Western Europe and North America region measured by the Index, although there are significant variations across the three cities polled (Rome, Milan, and Naples). Out of 12 countries covered in the region, Italy ranks 12th in seven of the eight rule of law dimensions. Corruption within the judiciary and impunity of government officials - where the country ranks 27th and 35th, respectively - both constitute significant institutional weaknesses. Italy ranks last among high-income countries in the areas of open government, order and security, and access to civil justice. Lack of government accountability, delays in administrative and judicial
23 WJP Rule of Law Index
Box 5: Equal Access to Justice 5 % 7 % = 5 +% ] % 3 0 =% 7 ] ] @ % 7; 5 0 7 0 % 5 0 5 0 5 5 ] 5 5 0 5 % % 7 ] 5 % 5 ] % =% R % 75
Figure 2: Access to civil justice in high-income countries 50 5 %
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
UAE Spain tates Italy Japan France Poland Sweden Norway Estonia Austria Belgium Canada Croa a Germany Australia Singapore Netherlands ed Kingdom South Korea New Zealand Hong Kong SAR United S Unit Czech Republic
Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database ]% % 7 ] ] ] =% % ] 7 5 % % = 5 0 ] % ] @ % ] ] % 0 =% 7 In numerous countries, however, access to justice 7 ] ] 5 % 5 Figure 3: Use of formal dispute mechanisms in Germany ] ] ; 7 % 0 ]% ] 7 % and the United States 5 % ] 5 ] 6 7 ] % 5 Q ] % % ^ % ] 7 @ @ 5 ] 5 % _ 0 0 ]% 0 Q ] @ 6 % 3 ] 0 ] 0 ]% 5 %] 7 % 0 % 7 0 ] 5 0 =% 7 5 % ] 6% ] ] % 5 7 Low Income 0 %] 5% High income 3 Q 7 ] 0 4%
% 0 6 ] 0 3% ]% ^ 5 % ] _5 ] ] Q 75 R % 5 2%
% ]% R % 5 1% 7 @ 3 % _% R 0% 5 0 =% @ Q 5 R Filed Took no Filed Took no lawsuit ] ] 0 7 7V 7 % % ac on lawsuit ac on 7 ^ % R % _5 @ Germany United States 0 ]% 3 0 %] ] Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database y 5 %
24 Regional Trends
Latin America and Figure 4: Conviction rates in Latin America Q ] ] % ] % 5 ] % 5 ]% the Caribbean 16% Latin America presents a picture of sharp contrasts. 14% In spite of recent movements towards openness 12% and political freedoms that have positioned many 10% countries at the forefront in protecting basic rights 8% 6% and liberties, the region’s public institutions remain 4%
fragile. Corruption and a lack of government 2% accountability are still prevalent. Accordingly, 0% d rl a a the perception of impunity remains widespread. Wo al azil Chile gen na alvador Br Peru Mexico Bolivia Jamaic In Argentina and Mexico, for instance, only 15 of the ColombiaAr El S VenezuelaGuatem st percent of the people believe that institutions will Re act effectively in cases of corruption. Furthermore, Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database public institutions in Latin America are not as score is in the area of order and security, where st efficient as those of countries in other regions, and it ranks 51 among all indexed countries. Police police forces struggle to provide protection from abuses and harsh conditions of correctional facilities crime or to punish perpetrators of abuses. Nowadays, are also problematic. Latin American countries show the highest crime rates in the world and the criminal investigation and Argentina places low in the rankings in several adjudication systems rank among the worst in the dimensions. Government accountability is weak, world (See figure 4). partly because of the poor performance of government agencies in investigating allegations of misconduct, Chile leads the region in all dimensions of the rule as well as political interference in law enforcement of law, and is positioned in the top 20 out of all agencies and the judiciary. Regulatory agencies are th 66 countries in six categories. The government is perceived as ineffective (ranking 54 globally, and accountable and courts are transparent and efficient. third to last in the region) and complaints take a th While Chile’s crime rates are relatively high in long time to get resolved (ranking 60 out of 66 comparison to other middle-income countries, the countries). Another weakness is the high incidence criminal justice system is effective and generally of crime. According to the general population poll, adheres to due process. Areas in need of attention 18 percent of respondents in Buenos Aires, Cordoba, include police discrimination against foreigners and and Rosario reported having experienced a burglary ethnic minorities, harsh conditions in correctional in the past three years. Out of those incidents, only facilities, and criminal recidivism. 4 percent of the perpetrators were punished. On the positive side, the court system, although slow and Brazil follows Chile as the second-best performer not fully independent, is accessible. In this regard, in the region and positions itself as the country with people in Argentina have better access to legal the highest marks among the BRIC economies. The counsel in civil disputes than do individuals in some country enjoys a fair system of checks and balances, developed countries, such as Canada and the United although a perceived culture of impunity among States. government officials raises some cause for concern. Fundamental rights are generally respected, ranking Peru scores highly with regard to checks on 4th among the 19 upper-middle income countries executive power, as well as in protection of and 3rd among the 12 countries in Latin America. fundamental rights, including freedom of thought Regulatory agencies are perceived as relatively and religion and freedom of opinion and expression. independent, but inefficient. The civil justice system Government agencies are transparent, although not is accessible (ranking 24th globally and second as effective as in other middle-income countries. On in Latin America), although court decisions are the other hand, the civil justice system is perceived difficult to enforce (ranking 54th). Brazil’s lowest as slow, expensive, and inaccessible, particularly for
25 WJP Rule of Law Index
disadvantaged groups. Another weakness is criminal (ranking 27th). However, it is the worst performer justice—ranking 36th out of the 66 countries in the world in accountability and effective checks indexed— which can be explained by corruption on executive power. Corruption appears to be and deficiencies in the criminal investigation and widespread (ranking 54th), crime and violence are adjudication systems. common (ranking 66th), government institutions are non-transparent, and the criminal justice system is Colombia is a country of sharp contrasts, scoring ineffective and subject to political influence (ranking very high in some dimensions and very low in 66th). The country also displays serious flaws in others. It stands out as one of the most open guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights, in countries in Latin America, ranking second highest particular, freedom of opinion and expression, and among middle-income countries and 18th in the the right to privacy. On the other hand, while the global rankings in the area of open government. property rights of companies are generally weak, the People in Colombia enjoy better access to official property rights of ordinary people appear to receive information and higher degrees of participation in significantly better protection. the administration of the laws than individuals in most other countries. Colombia also scores well in El Salvador and Guatemala fall into the middle other rule of law areas, including effective regulatory of the global rankings in most categories, with El enforcement (ranking 4th in Latin America) and in Salvador generally outperforming Guatemala. The government accountability. The judicial system is area of effective regulatory enforcement is one of independent and free of undue influence, and it is El Salvador’s strengths (ranking 2nd among lower- one of the most accessible and affordable in the middle income countries and 24th globally). The region. However, it is affected by delays and lack country’s worst performances are in the areas of of effectiveness in the investigation and prosecution criminal justice (ranking 54th globally), and open of crimes. Colombia’s worst performance is in the government (ranking 10th in the region). Civil courts area of order and security (ranking 64th out of 66 are generally accessible, but slow, and corruption in countries indexed), which is partly attributed to the judicial system is a serious cause for concern. high crime rates and the presence of powerful Police abuses and harsh conditions of correctional criminal organizations. Police abuses, violations of facilities are also significant problems. human rights, and poor conditions of correctional facilities are also significant problems. Civil conflict Guatemala also presents weaknesses in access to remains a challenge (ranking 60th). justice, which could be attributed to, among other factors, lack of information, language barriers Bolivia faces challenges in terms of transparency for disadvantaged groups, lengthy processes, and and accountability of public institutions, reflecting corruption. Labor rights are weak, and crime is a very a climate characterized by impunity, corruption, and serious problem (ranking 63rd out of 66 countries). political interference in law enforcement agencies, While government accountability is weak (ranking the legislature, and the judiciary. The judicial system 53rd globally), Guatemala performs well on freedom is inefficient and affected by corruption. Concerns of religion and effective protection of the right to also remain about discrimination and restrictions petition the government when compared with its in the freedom of opinion and expression (both income-group peers. ranking 11th out of 12 in the region). Property rights are weak, and police abuses remain a significant Mexico’s performance is mixed. The country problem. On the other hand, Bolivia obtains high possesses a long constitutional tradition, strong marks in the areas of open government (ranking 5th protections for free speech and freedom of religion, among income-group peers), and affordability of and an independent judiciary. Mexico also performs legal services. relatively well on measures of openness (ranking 27th globally, and 4th within the region), as well as Venezuela ranks relatively well in terms of religious on effectiveness of its administrative and regulatory freedom (ranking 15th), accessibility of the civil agencies (ranking 35th). On the other hand, courts (ranking 21st), and protection of labor rights corruption is a serious problem in all branches of
26 Regional Trends government (ranking 53rd), and Mexico’s police South Korea, and the jurisdiction of Hong Kong forces continue to struggle to guarantee the security SAR, score high in most dimensions. In contrast, of its citizens against crime and violence (ranking Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and 58th). The criminal justice system is deficient — Thailand generally rank significantly lower than ranking 63rd out of 66 countries indexed— mainly the wealthier countries in the region; however, they because of weaknesses in the criminal investigation perform relatively well in comparison to countries and adjudication systems, prevalent discrimination from other regions of the world with similar income against vulnerable groups, corruption among levels. judges and law enforcement officials, and serious violations of the due process of law and rights of the New Zealand stands out as the best performer in accused, where it ranks 64th. Failures to prosecute the region. The country ranks first in absence of government officials who commit violations and corruption and is positioned in the top five in the corrupt acts also remain a cause of concern in the world in seven of the eight categories of the Index. country (ranking 59th). Government agencies and courts in the country are efficient, transparent, and free of corruption. Jamaica and the Dominican Republic occupy Fundamental rights are strongly protected. The mid-range positions in most areas within the judicial system is accessible, independent, free regional rankings. Jamaica performs strongly in of corruption and effective. However, it is also guaranteeing freedom of religion and freedom of perceived to be slow relative to other high income privacy, although police abuses and harsh conditions countries, ranking 18th in this area. in correctional facilities remain a source of concern. The judicial system is independent and relatively Australia ranks among the top ten globally in six free of corruption, but it is also slow and ineffective. of the eight categories measured by the Index. The The country’s main weaknesses lie in the areas of civil courts are efficient and independent, although security and open government, wherein the country access to translators and affordable legal counsel ranks 14th and 19th respectively among upper-middle remains limited, particularly for disadvantaged income countries. Vigilante justice and organized groups. In this area, Australia scores lower than crime are areas in need of attention. almost all high-income countries. Another area of concern is discrimination. While the country ranks Dominican Republic enjoys a relatively efficient among the best in the world in protecting most civil court system. According to the general fundamental rights, it lags behind in guaranteeing population poll, 64 percent of people who went to equal treatment and non-discrimination, especially court for a debt collection had the conflict resolved for immigrants and ethnic minorities. In this in less than a year. This figure is much higher than area, Australia ranks last among all high-income the average figure for Argentina (24%), Mexico countries and ranks 40th globally. (37%), and even Spain (30%), where processes take longer. However, accessibility of legal aid and Japan is one of the highest-ranking countries in government interference with the judiciary are areas the East Asia and Pacific region. The country’s that still require attention. Crime and vigilante institutions and courts rank among the best in justice, lack of accountability for misconduct of the world. Japan places 2nd in the region and 4th government officers, corruption of the security globally for the effectiveness and transparency of forces, and violations of human rights, are also its regulatory agencies. Security is high (ranking among the Dominican Republic’s weaknesses. 4th in the world) and the criminal justice system is effective (ranking 12th), although concerns remain regarding due process violations. Japan’s lowest East Asia and Pacific score is in the area of accessibility and affordability of civil procedures, mainly because of high litigation The East Asia and Pacific region displays a costs. The high costs imposed by courts and lawyers, heterogeneous picture. Wealthier countries such for instance, place Japan 44th out of 66 countries as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and in terms of accessibility and affordability of civil
27 WJP Rule of Law Index
procedures. the country still lags behind others in the region in guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms to South Korea shows a strong and fairly even picture its people (ranking 21st). across most of the areas measured by the Index. Administrative agencies are transparent, free of China does well among lower-middle income corruption, and relatively effective. Nonetheless, countries in most categories, and is the second- the country exhibits weaknesses in the area of best performer among the BRIC economies. government accountability —ranking second to China has seen major improvements in the last among high-income countries and 30th out quality, effectiveness, and accountability of its of the 66 countries indexed. This low mark partly legal institutions. Security is high (ranking 25th), reflects political interference within the legislature and the criminal justice system ranks 2nd among and the judiciary, as well as deficient checks on the its income peers. Enforcement of regulations is government’s power. While fundamental rights are relatively ineffective (ranking 43rd globally and 8th strongly protected, South Korea also lags behind among lower-middle income countries). The civil other advanced countries in guaranteeing freedom court system is relatively accessible and speedy, of association and freedom of expression, ranking but judicial independence remains an area where 25th and 35th respectively. more progress is needed. Indicators of fundamental rights are weak, including labor rights (ranking 61st Singapore features prominently among the indexed out of 66), freedom of assembly (ranking 66th), and countries in providing security to its citizens freedom of speech (ranking 66th). (ranking 2nd), and places in the top 10 in two other categories. The public administration of the country Indonesia is in the top half of the rankings is effective and corruption is minimal (ranking 4th). among lower-middle income countries in most The criminal justice system is among the most dimensions. Compared with other countries in effective in the world (ranking 5th). Notwithstanding the region, the country’s main strengths are in the the country’s outstanding performance in most areas of freedom of opinion (ranking 23rd globally), categories, there are substantial limitations on and open government (ranking 29th in the world freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, with and 3rd among income-group peers). Indonesians Singapore in 49th and 60th place, respectively, out of experience barriers to access official information, all 66 countries. yet they enjoy higher degrees of participation in the administration of the laws than individuals in other Hong Kong SAR, China features in the top East Asia and Pacific region countries. Indonesia five in three categories. The country places 1st faces challenges in the functioning of government in guaranteeing order and security and 2nd for agencies and courts. Corruption in Indonesia is the effectiveness of its criminal justice system. pervasive, ranking second to last in the region Administrative agencies and courts are efficient and 47th globally. The courts are perceived to be and free of corruption, although not entirely free of independent of government control, but affected by government interference. In spite of these features, powerful private interests and corruption. The civil
Table 3: Rule of law in Brazil, China, India, and Russia
W W W W W W W W , + 0 % 7 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to Q 0 Criminal %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Powers Justice 2 26 24 51 25 30 26 24 44 China 37 31 25 64 26 43 44 25 India 24 51 65 36 25 56 48 35 Z% 55 40 45 47 52 49 40 23 Source: WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database
28 Regional Trends
justice system remains underdeveloped (ranking (ranking 40th), particularly in regard to violations 41st), attributable in part to the lack of affordable against the right to life and security of the person legal services, deficient enforcement mechanisms, (ranking 57th); police abuses; due process violations; and the lengthy duration of cases. Police abuses and and harsh conditions in correctional facilities; as harsh conditions in correctional facilities are also well as deficiencies in the electoral process. The significant problems. civil court system also obtains poor scores (ranking 12th out of 13 in the region and 56th globally), Compared with other lower middle-income attributable to deficient enforcement mechanisms, countries, Thailand performs relatively well, corruption among judges and law enforcement obtaining high marks on absence of crime (ranking officers, and the lengthy duration of cases. These 20th globally), and effectiveness of the criminal factors may explain why few people use the court justice system (ranking 24th). However, some areas system to solve disputes. According to a general require further attention. Civil conflict and political population poll of 1,000 people in Manila, Davao, violence remain significant problems (ranking 62nd). and Cebu, only 5 percent of the people who had a Corruption is a challenge, particularly within the debt collection dispute went to court. Out of those police. The Thai civil justice system is characterized people, nobody had the conflict resolved in less than by government influence and lengthy duration a year. of cases. Access to official information is limited (ranking 62nd). Vietnam also presents a mixed picture, falling in the middle of the rankings on most categories. Vietnam’s As with many other countries in the region, order and security levels are high by regional and Malaysia presents a contrasting view. Compared income group standards (ranking 22nd globally). with other upper-middle income countries, Despite ongoing reforms, regulatory agencies and Malaysia’s government is relatively accountable, courts are not efficient, and corruption exists. Other although corruption, political interference, and areas where particular attention should be focused impunity still exist. The efficiency and transparency include judicial independence, and protection of of government agencies can still improve, and efforts fundamental rights - particularly regarding freedom should also be made in the area of access to justice of speech - an area where the country ranks 62nd. (ranking 47th globally, and 15th in the upper-middle Vietnam also receives low marks in the effective income group). The country is safe, ranking 1st enforcement of civil justice and access to public among 19 income peers and on a par with countries information. such as France and Belgium. However, abuses by the police still occur. Of particular concern is the Cambodia is ranked much lower than most other situation posed by violations of fundamental rights, countries in the region on all dimensions. The where Malaysia ranks 59th out of 66 countries. overall legal and institutional environment remains quite weak, which is highlighted by the low scores in The Philippines performs well relative to lower- key areas, including effective limits on government middle income countries on most dimensions, powers (ranking 65th out of 66); regulatory although it still requires further efforts in many enforcement; access to civil justice; and absence areas. The country stands out for having reasonably of corruption, where the country ranks last in the effective checks and balances on the government’s world. Property rights are very weak (ranking 66th), power (ranking 3rd out of 16 income-group peers), and police abuses remain a significant problem. On including a vibrant civil society, a free media, and the positive side, Cambodia displays lower crime an independent judiciary. The Philippines also rates than most countries in the low income group. outperforms most lower-middle income countries in the area of effective regulatory enforcement, ranking 5th out of 16 countries. Nonetheless, civil conflict and political violence remain significant challenges (ranking 53rd). Of particular concern are shortcomings in the field of fundamental rights
29 WJP Rule of Law Index
Box 6: Equal protection of the law 5 5 0 V 3 % 0 ^% Z 5 > 0 7 7 ] ] V 5 % ] % 7 Z% , 6 7 @ 5 % 5 5 65 ] Q ]% % 5 5 ] ] 5 0 % %]] 5 ] ] 75 % ? %] 0 7 % % 75 ]] _% 7 5 0 7 % 5 % ] ] T ] 5 ] 6] 6 % ]] 7 _% 7 5 0% %] % = ] % 7 0 ] % %] Figure 5: Differences in police abuse Q ] % % 7 ] 7 7 % 7 ] 7 5 %] 7 % 0
High income
Low income
20%
10%
0%
Turkey Peru Peru Italy tates ColombiaTurkeyMexico ItalyBrazil South Africa GermanyMexico Brazil Colombia Lebanon France Spain UnitedG S Argen na NorwaySiRussia Chile Canada United Kingdom Kazakhstan Romania Netherlands Czech Republic
Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database
South Asia 51st), and police discrimination and abuses are not unusual. Order and security - including crime, civil The WJP Rule of Law Index covers only three conflict, and political violence - is also a source of countries in this region in 2011: Bangladesh, India, concern. and Pakistan. Bangladesh faces multiple challenges to India enjoys strong protections of free speech strengthening the rule of law. Government (ranking 22nd out of 66), an independent judiciary accountability remains low (ranking 48th globally, (ranking 18th), a functioning system of checks and and 3rd among low-income countries), and balances, and a relatively open government (ranking administrative agencies and courts are extremely 1st among 16 lower-middle income countries inefficient and corrupt. The civil justice system and 25th globally). However, the unsatisfactory shares many of the same problems as other countries performance of public administrative bodies has a in the region, particularly with regard to the lengthy negative impact on the rule of law. The civil court duration of cases and corruptive practices in lower system ranks poorly (48th out of 66) mainly because level courts —where it ranks 62nd overall, and third of deficiencies in access to justice, particularly in the to last among low-income countries. Human rights areas of court congestion, enforcement, and delays violations and police abuses are also a significant in processing cases, where the country ranks third problem; however, unlike other countries in the to last. Corruption remains significant (ranking region, Bangladesh is perceived as relatively safe
30 Regional Trends from crime (ranking 13th globally), although mob globally) mainly because of the lengthy resolution of justice is a persistent problem. Another relative cases (ranking 50th), and difficulties enforcing court strength is the protection of labor rights, an area in decisions (ranking 53rd). which Bangladesh ranks first among low-income countries, although it still lags behind in comparison Czech Republic trails closely behind Poland in with more developed nations. most dimensions. The country has a relatively strong system of checks and balances (ranking 21st) and Pakistan shows weaknesses in most areas when its administrative agencies are relatively effective compared to its regional and income group peers. (ranking 25th). Courts are independent, but very slow Low levels of government accountability are (ranking 58th). Other areas in need of attention are compounded by the prevalence of corruption, a corruption among administrative officers (ranking weak justice system, and a poor security situation, 33rd), and lack of effective sanctions for misconduct particularly related to terrorism and crime. Relatively (ranking 34th). Crime rates are also high compared strong areas include the courts’ independence from to other high-income countries. improper government influence, and respect for due process in administrative proceedings. Croatia and Romania fall in the middle of the rankings in most categories. Despite recent progress, Croatia’s institutions still lag behind those of other Eastern Europe and high-income countries. Its public administrative Central Asia bodies, for example, are inefficient, and the judicial system, while generally accessible, is still slow and Country performances across the Eastern Europe subject to political influence and corruption. The and Central Asia region are highly uneven. While country is safe from crime (ranking 6th), but further some countries outperform high-income countries work is needed in terms of openness (ranking 33rd) on a number of indicators, other nations in the and equal treatment of ethnic minorities. region find themselves ranking at the bottom of the sample. Estonia, Poland, and the Czech Republic, Romania shows a mixed performance across the all of whom recently joined the European Union, eight dimensions, with high marks in the areas of are the strongest performers in the region. security and respect for fundamental rights (ranking 2nd among 19 upper-middle income countries in Estonia leads the region in all but one category, both areas), and in criminal justice (ranking 3rd owing to its well-functioning and open institutions. among income peers and 28th globally). However, Administrative agencies and courts are accountable, the country scores low in terms of the functioning of effective, and free of corruption; and fundamental administrative bodies and efficiency of the judiciary. rights are strongly protected. However, crime rates Effective enforcement of regulations is very weak in Estonia are higher than in other nations with (ranking 59th), accountability for misconduct of similar levels of development included in the Index government officers is deficient (ranking 53rd), and (ranking 32nd out of 66 countries). Judicial delays are corruption persists. Harsh treatment of prisoners also another area in need of attention (ranking 27th and detainees is an area of concern. globally). Bulgaria places in the bottom half of the upper- Poland and the Czech Republic stand out amongst middle income countries, partly because of the weak the former centrally planned economies with good enforcement of laws and regulations. Corruption is performances across all categories. Poland’s public high and government accountability low —ranking institutions rank 21st in absence of corruption, and 50th out of the 66 countries indexed— reflecting 22nd in effectiveness of regulatory enforcement. The the poor performance of government agencies country has a good record in observing fundamental in investigating allegations of misconduct. The rights, though discrimination against disadvantaged criminal justice system displays serious flaws, and groups remains an issue. Poland’s lowest score comes discrimination against minorities is problematic. in the area of access to civil justice (ranking 30th On the positive side, Bulgaria outperforms most
31 WJP Rule of Law Index
upper-middle income countries in protecting the relatively efficient, although still subject to undue security of its citizens from crime, and in respecting influence. The country is safe from crime and the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly. violence (ranking 27th). In spite of these strengths, The right to petition the government and citizen the country still faces serious challenges in terms participation are also significant strengths (ranking of accountability and constraints on the executive 2nd in the region and 26th globally). branch, where it ranks 59th. The situation in regard to the independence of the legislative and the Albania is safe from crime, but its institutions judiciary, as well as the fairness of elections, remains have serious flaws that challenge advancements in a source of concern. other areas. The political mechanisms to hold the executive accountable are weak, and corruption Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan rank in the bottom half among government officials is pervasive, placing the of middle-income countries on most categories. country last among upper-middle income nations. Despite recent reforms, both countries still face many Rules and regulations are difficult to enforce, and challenges to strengthening the rule of law. Ukraine the judiciary is plagued by corruption and political ranks third to last in government accountability, interference. Police abuses and harsh conditions in with political interference, impunity, and corruption correctional facilities are also significant problems. leading to manipulation in the application of the law. Regulatory agencies are ineffective and opaque Turkey ranks in the middle in comparison to the (ranking 64th), and the courts are inefficient and other Eastern Europe and Central Asia nations. corrupt. On the positive side, the country obtains The country shows institutional strengths, relatively high marks in protecting basic liberties, particularly within the public administration bodies, such as freedom of religion, and it is relatively safe and the civil justice system, where it ranks 27th. from violent crime (ranking 38th). Property rights Nonetheless, Turkey receives low marks in the areas are weak. of government accountability (ranking 52nd out of 66 countries) and fundamental rights (ranking 58th), Kyrgyzstan ranks 57th in establishing effective limits mainly because of deficiencies in the functioning of on government power and 61st in corruption. Despite auditing mechanisms, political interference within the implementation of some reform measures, the the legislature and the judiciary, a poor record on performance of courts is still poor (ranking 4th out freedom of expression, and arbitrary interference of the eight low-income countries). In addition, with privacy. following the political turmoil, the repressiveness of the state stands out as an important source of Russia shows serious deficiencies in checks concern. The country ranks second to last in the and balances among the different branches of region in protection of fundamental rights, with government (ranking 55th), leading to an institutional poor scores in the areas of due process, arbitrary environment characterized by corruption, impunity, interference of privacy, and discrimination. Property and political interference. Regulations are not always rights are weak. enforced (ranking 49th), and civil courts, although accessible, are corrupt and inefficient. Crime rates in Russia are not as high as those in other middle- Middle East and North Africa income countries (ranking 8th out of 19), and the This report covers five countries in the Middle East criminal justice system is relatively effective (23rd). and North Africa (MENA) region: Iran, Jordan, Violations against some fundamental rights, such Lebanon, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates as freedom of opinion, freedom of association, (UAE). In most areas, the countries in this region and arbitrary interference with privacy are areas of display average scores. However, as confirmed by concern. the political turmoil at the beginning of 2011 in other MENA region countries, these countries have Kazakhstan’s regulatory agencies are relatively serious weaknesses in the areas of accountability, effective (ranking 4th in the region and 31st checks and balances on the executive branch, globally) and civil courts are fairly accessible and
32 Regional Trends
Box 7. Regulatory compliance around the world % 0 % in all jurisdictions, such as environmental regulations, ] 0 0 % ]% _% 5 @] 7 5 % 0 % ] 5 % % ] ]% % % ] 0 5 % 5 % 0 7 7 % ] 67 % ] 6 ] 5 % 0 5 ] 0 7 5 ] 7 5 % 0 % % 7 ] ] 7 75 % 7 ] 0 7 7 % + % ] % 7 % ^ % _ ) 5 @ % @ 7 % % 2 % 5 5 % 7 0 6 % 7 0 % 0 7 5 % 75 0 % R % 5 %]] R ] 5 ] 7 % 7 % 5 R % % % 7 % % 5 R % 5 % 7 5 ]% 0 ]5 7 0 7 7 ]] % R ] 6 % @ 5 5 % 7 ]% % ] 7 5 % 7 5 % % 7 5 ] 3 Z% , 6 % 7 % ] 0 3 @ % % % ] 0 % 0 6 5 5 0 5 % 0 % 7 ] 6 ] ] % 7 ]% ] 0 6 % ] 0 ] % 6 0 6] ] ] 0 ] ] 7 % _% ] Z 7 ] % 5 6 % ] 6] outcomes associated with activities that are regulated
Figure 6: Regulatory enforcement around the world % %]
Factor 6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement > 0.59
0.50 - 0.59
< 0.50
Not indexed
Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database
33 WJP Rule of Law Index
openness, and respect for fundamental rights, of justice, mainly because of corruption and especially discrimination, freedom of opinion, and political interference within the civil courts, delays, freedom of belief and religion. discrimination against marginalized groups, and absence of guarantees of due process of law in The United Arab Emirates has the highest scores of criminal cases. those countries in the region that were included in the sample in most dimensions. Public institutions Morocco obtains medium marks on most in the country are relatively well developed and dimensions, but generally underperforms its corruption-free (ranking 13th out of 66 countries), regional peers. While Morocco performs well in and government officers are held accountable for the area of order and security, it lags behind in misconduct. Similarly, the civil court system is very all other categories. Despite recent reform efforts, efficient and relatively independent, although it some weaknesses remain in the areas of government remains inaccessible for many people. In spite of accountability, corruption, and regulatory these strengths, the formal system of checks and enforcement. The assessment of the civil justice balances remains weak, and fundamental rights system remains average - ranking 45th overall, and are curtailed (ranking 51st), including labor rights, 7th out of 16 lower-middle income group countries freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom - and the criminal justice system displays flaws from arbitrary interference with privacy, and with regard to the due process of law. Other areas freedom of opinion and expression. of concern are open government, where the country ranks 49th out of 66, and freedom of opinion and Jordan is positioned in second place within the expression. countries included in the MENA region. The country’s efficient public institutions, along with a high level of security, remain its main areas of Sub-Saharan Africa strength. It also obtains relatively high marks in The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 report covers the areas of civil and criminal justice, absence of eight countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The region corruption, and effective regulatory enforcement. exhibits a range of performance levels, with South Property rights are also well protected. In spite of Africa and Ghana as the regional leaders, and the these achievements, Jordan’s record in the area of rest of the countries positioned at the bottom of the fundamental rights remains one of the worst in the global ranking. world, particularly with regard to discrimination (ranking 55th out of 66 countries), and labor rights South Africa has the best rule of law outcomes in (ranking 63rd). Sub-Saharan Africa. The country ranks well in most dimensions, including government accountability, Iran’s law enforcement is relatively strong, but effective regulatory enforcement, and access to often used as an instrument to perpetrate abuses. justice, particularly when compared with countries Government accountability is weak (ranking 58th at similar stages of economic development. Judicial globally and last within the region), and corruption independence and fundamental rights are strong. is prevalent. Courts, although fairly efficient, are The lack of security and the prevalence of crime, subject to corruption and political interference. however, continue to be extremely worrisome Another area of serious concern is the situation of (ranking 61st overall). According to the general fundamental rights, where the country ranks last in population poll of 1,000 people in Johannesburg, the world. Cape Town, and Durban, six percent of respondents reported a murder in their household in the past five Lebanon stands out in the region due to its efforts years, and 25 percent reported having experienced a to guarantee civil rights and freedoms amongst its burglary in the past three years. These rates are among people (ranking 1st in the region and 27th globally). the highest in the world. Other areas of concern in The country is relatively safe from crime, but South Africa are the high rate of vigilante justice, public institutions are inefficient and corrupt. Of the relatively ineffective criminal justice system, and particular concern is the case of the administration
34 Regional Trends
Box 8: Open government around the world )] 0 ] % ) 7 6 % 0 0 5 ] ] 5 ] 7 @ % and collaboration between the government and its 7] 5 % ]% ] ] 5 ] 7 % ] 6 ]% @ ] = ^ 6 ] 5 % 7 Z _% ]% % % ] ] _ % 5 _% 7 0 7 0 @ ] ] 0 0 % @ ] 5 ] = ] % 3 Z% , 6 ] 0 % 5 Index results suggest that some governments are more ]% 5 6 ] ] 0 5 0 ] 0 ] ] ]% 0 7 7 3 % ] ] 6 % 5 )] 0 ]% 6 0 7 Q 0 5 7 % R Figure 7: Open government around the world Z 5 @ 7 %
6 5.6 Official informa on is available on request 5.5 Official dra s of laws are available to the public 5 5.4 Right to pe on the government and public par cipa on 5.3 The laws are stable 4 5.2 The laws are publicized and widely accessible 5.1 The laws are comprehensible to the public 3
2
1
0 Western East Asia La n Eastern Middle South Asia Sub- Europe & Pacific America & Europe & East & Saharan & North Caribbean Central North Africa America Asia Africa
Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database the poor condition of correctional facilities. of the rankings in most dimensions. Although government accountability is weak, with particular Ghana follows South Africa as the second-best concerns regarding the proper functioning of checks performer in the region, and is the best performer and balances on the executive branch (ranking 51st among low-income countries. The country enjoys overall and 11th out of 16 lower-middle income a good system of checks and balances (ranking countries). Another area where efforts are required 19th overall and first within the region). Public is open government, where the country ranks 62nd. administration bodies are relatively effective and The country has a moderate record in protecting corruption levels are lower than in most other fundamental rights (ranking 38th overall and 3rd in countries in the region. The civil justice system is Sub-Saharan Africa), although police abuses and relatively independent, but still inaccessible to most harsh treatment of prisoners remain a source of people. Security from crime (ranking 43rd), vigilante concern. justice, and deficiencies in the criminal investigation and adjudication systems, are areas that require Cameroon lags behind its regional and income attention. peers in most categories. The country faces multiple challenges in terms of accountability the and Within its income group, Senegal is in the middle functioning of public institutions. Effective checks
35 WJP Rule of Law Index
and balances are poor (ranking 62nd overall and independent, are under-resourced and inaccessible second to last within the region), and corruption to most people. remains widespread (ranking 64th). The civil court system is slow and subject to political influence, Kenya occupies the 61st place in government and fundamental rights are not always respected in accountability, which is partly attributable to the practice. Restrictions to the freedoms of assembly, inability of the legislature and the judiciary to act as opinion, and expression, as well as violations of a check on the executive branch. Corruption remains fundamental labor rights, are sources of concern. widespread and regulatory enforcement is ineffective While Cameroon’s most significant strength in (ranking second to last in the region). Civil conflict comparison to other countries in the region is the and political violence remain significant challenges low incidence of crime, police abuses, high incidence (ranking 58th). Open government and lack of respect of mob and vigilante justice, and harsh conditions of fundamental rights are also other areas of concern. in correctional facilities, remain areas in need of attention. Liberia’s scores reflect the recent advances towards a functioning system of checks and balances on the Nigeria is among the bottom half of the lower- executive branch. The country ranks relatively well middle countries in most dimensions. Checks and in the area of government accountability (ranking balances on the executive branch function relatively 2nd among low-income countries), however, the lack better than in other Sub-Saharan African countries, of sanctions to punish misconduct raises concerns. although corruption is prevalent. The country is Liberia outperforms its regional peers in protecting affected by civil conflict and political violence some basic liberties. However, the quality of public (ranking 58th). Crime and vigilante justice remain administrative bodies and the judiciary - positioned serious problems (ranking 50th), which is in part at the bottom of the rankings - are hampered by a explained by the shortcomings within the criminal lack of resources and pervasive corruption. justice system (ranking 53rd and third to last in the region).
Ethiopia, in comparison with other low-income nations, is in the middle of the rankings when it comes to incorporating principles of the rule of law. Accountability is very weak by regional standards (ranking 63rd globally and second to last among low- income nations) and corruption remains. Property rights are weak (ranking 64th). The performance of regulatory agencies and courts is poor, but comparable to other countries in the region. The country has a very poor record in the area of fundamental rights, ranking 65th globally and last in the region. Of greatest concern are restrictions limiting fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech, as well as illegal detentions and due process violations.
In Uganda government accountability is low (ranking 54th globally and 4th among low-income countries), and administrative agencies are inefficient and corrupt. Protection of fundamental rights is weak (ranking 61st out of 66 countries), and civil conflict and political violence remain significant challenges. Courts, although relatively
36 Country Profiles
2 Section 2— Disaggregated Country Profiles Scores This section presents profiles for the 65 countries and one additional jurisdiction included in the 2011 Section 2 displays four graphs that show the administration of the Index. 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 How to Read the Country Profiles concept measured by the Index. Each sub-factor is Each country profile presents the featured country’s represented by a radius running from the center of scores for each of the WJP Rule of Law Index’s the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle factors and sub-factors, and draws comparisons corresponds to the lowest possible score for each between the scores of the featured country and sub-factor (0.00) and the outer edge of the circle the scores of other indexed countries that share marks the highest possible score for each sub-factor regional and income level similarities. All variables (1.00). Higher scores signify a higher adherence to used to score each of the eight independent factors the rule of law. are coded and rescaled to range between 0 and 1, where 1 signifies the highest score and 0 signifies The country scores are shown in blue. The graphs the lowest score. The average also show the average scores of all scores of the rescaled variables countries indexed within the region (in are later normalized using the green) and all countries indexed with Albania Tirana, Durres, Elbasan comparable per capita income levels Min-Max method. Individual 1 1. WJP Rule of Law Index™ Income WJP Rule of Law Index Factors Score Global Ranking Regional Income Group Upper Middle Ranking Ranking Factor 1: Limited Government Powers 0.47 49/66 6/12 13/19 (in red). As a point of reference, the Region Factor 2: Absence of Corrup on 0.38 55/66 10/12 19/19 variables tapping the same Eastern Europe & Central Asia Factor 3: Order and Security 0.77 32/66 9/12 4/19 Popula on Factor 4: Fundamental Rights 0.65 29/66 6/12 7/19 3m (2010) Factor 5: Open Government 0.42 50/66 9/12 15/19 graphs also show the score achieved for 48% Urban Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement 0.46 51/66 10/12 14/19 concept are averaged and then 24% in three largest ci es Factor 7: Access to Civil Jus ce 0.51 47/66 10/12 15/19 Factor 8: Effec ve Criminal Jus ce 0.39 57/66 10/12 16/19 each sub-factor by the top performer aggregated into factors and 2 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index™ sub-factors In each graph, a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possible score for each sub-factor (0.00); the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.00). amongst all 66 countries indexed (in sub-factors using arithmetic Key Albania Top Score Upper Middle Income Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights violet). 1.2 Government powers limited by legislature 3.1 Absence of crime 3.2 Civil conflict is averages. These scores are the 2.3 Absence of 1.0 1.0 4.8 Fundamental labor rights effec vely limited corrup on by the 1.3 Government police and military powers limited by judiciary 3.3 People do not resort to violence 4.7 Freedom of 0.5 0.5 assembly and 0.5 to redress basis for the final rankings. associa on grievances 2.2 Absence of corrup on 1.4 in the Independent judicial audi ng and 0.0 review 0.0 4.1 Equal The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 branch 4.6 Arbitrary treatment interference and absence of of privacy discrimina on
2.1 Absence of 1.5 Government corrup on in officials the execu ve report does not include scores for sanc oned for branch misconduct 4.2 Right to life 4.5 Freedom of belief and security of and religion the person
1 1.7 Transi on of power 1.6 Freedom of opinion 4.4 Freedom of opinion 4.3 Due process of law Section 1— subject to the law and expression and expression the following sub-factors: sub-factor Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice 5.1 Laws are clear 7.2 People can access legal counsel 6.5 The government does 7.3 People can access and 8.7. Due process of law 1.0 1.1 “Government powers are defined not expropriate without 1.0 adequate compensa on 5.2 Laws are publicized 8.6 Criminal system is free of improper government free of
Scores for the 6.4 Due process 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.3 Laws are 0.5 in administra ve 8.5 Criminal in the fundamental law”, sub-factor stable proceedings system is free is free of
7.6 Civil 0.0 8.4 Criminal 0.0 6.3 5.4 Right system is of improper Administra ve to pe on 2.4 “Government officials in the free of government proceedings and public without par cipa on Rule of Law unreasonable delay not subject to un- 6.2 Government reasonable delays regula ons without 5.5 Official dra s of laws legislature do not use public office improper influence are available
6.1 Government regula ons 5.6 Official informa on 7.9 ADRs are accessible, impar- Factors effec vely enforced requested is available for private gain”, and sub-factor The table in Section 1 7.1 “People are aware of available displays the featured country’s remedies”. We anticipate that all the aggregate scores by factor and the country’s rankings above sub-factors will be included in the WJP Rule within its regional and income level groups. The of Law Index 2012 report. table is organized as follows: the first column lists the first eight factors that make up the Index. The Results for sub-factor 3.2 “Civil conflict is second column displays the country’s aggregate effectively limited” have been revised from the June score for each of the eight factors. The third column 2011 edition of the report. In the current edition, displays the country’s global ranking for each factor. intervals are defined for the continuous variables The fourth column shows the country’s ranking that make up sub-factor 3.2. Additional details of within its region, and finally, the fifth column the construction of this sub-factor can be found in shows the country’s ranking among countries with Botero and Ponce (2011). comparable per capita income levels.
39 Albania Tirana, Durres, Elbasan 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 49/66 6/12 13/19 Z W 5 %] 55/66 10/12 19/19 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 31/66 9/12 4/19 ]% W W% Z 28/66 6/12 6/19 3m (2010) W )] Q 0 50/66 9/12 15/19 Q W Z % 7 + 51/66 11/12 15/19 24% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 46/66 10/12 14/19 W + 0 % 57/66 10/12 16/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Albania 3 ] ]] + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
40 Argentina 2% 5 5 5 Z 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 47/66 9/12 12/19 Z W 5 %] 46/66 8/12 13/19 , 5 W ) % 7 56/66 9/12 15/19 ]% W W% Z 33/66 5/12 9/19 41m (2010) W )] Q 0 44/66 9/12 13/19 Q W Z % 7 + 54/66 10/12 17/19 39% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 31/66 4/12 8/19 W + 0 % 56/66 9/12 15/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 5 3 ] ]] , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
41 Australia 7 75 % 5 2 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 4/66 2/13 4/23 Z W 5 %] 9/66 5/13 9/23 + 5 W ) % 7 10/66 4/13 10/23 ]% W W% Z 7/66 2/13 7/23 22m (2010) W )] Q 0 8/66 4/13 8/23 Q W Z % 7 + 7/66 3/13 7/23 46% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 13/66 4/13 13/23 W + 0 % 15/66 5/13 15/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Australia 3 ] ^ + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
42 Austria 5 Q 5 , 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 8/66 6/12 8/23 Z W 5 %] 8/66 4/12 8/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 8/66 4/12 8/23 ]% W W% Z 5/66 4/12 5/23 8m (2010) W )] Q 0 9/66 5/12 9/23 Q W Z % 7 + 9/66 6/12 9/23 36% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 8/66 5/12 8/23 W + 0 % 8/66 4/12 8/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Austria 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
43 Bangladesh V @ 5 5 y % 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 48/66 2/3 3/8 Z W 5 %] 58/66 2/3 4/8 South Asia W ) % 7 42/66 1/3 3/8 ]% W W% Z 48/66 2/3 3/8 164m (2010) W )] Q 0 54/66 2/3 3/8 Q W Z % 7 + 58/66 2/3 4/8 13% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 62/66 2/3 6/8 W + 0 % 40/66 2/3 2/8 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Bangladesh 3 ] , South Asia
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
44 Belgium 2 % 5 5 ] 5 Q 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 12/66 8/12 12/23 Z W 5 %] 15/66 8/12 15/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 15/66 8/12 14/23 ]% W W% Z 11/66 6/12 11/23 11m (2010) W )] Q 0 15/66 9/12 15/23 Q W Z % 7 + 17/66 10/12 17/23 28% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 9/66 6/12 9/23 W + 0 % 18/66 9/12 18/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Belgium 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
45 Bolivia , 5 % 5 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 56/66 11/12 13/16 Z W 5 %] 60/66 12/12 14/16 , 5 W ) % 7 49/66 3/12 12/16 ]% W W% Z 49/66 11/12 9/16 10m (2010) W )] Q 0 34/66 6/12 5/16 Q W Z % 7 + 55/66 11/12 12/16 41% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 54/66 10/12 12/16 W + 0 % 62/66 10/12 16/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Bolivia 3 ] , , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
46 > % 5 Z 5 2 Brazil ^ 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 26/66 3/12 4/19 Z W 5 %] 24/66 2/12 2/19 , 5 W ) % 7 51/66 5/12 12/19 ]% W W% Z 25/66 3/12 4/19 193m (2010) W )] Q 0 30/66 5/12 6/19 Q W Z % 7 + 26/66 3/12 3/19 20% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 24/66 2/12 3/19 W + 0 % 44/66 5/12 11/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 2 3 ] ]] , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
47 Bulgaria 5 0 05 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 50/66 7/12 14/19 Z W 5 %] 50/66 9/12 16/19 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 32/66 10/12 5/19 ]% W W% Z 37/66 7/12 11/19 8m (2010) W )] Q 0 37/66 6/12 8/19 Q W Z % 7 + 45/66 8/12 13/19 25% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 38/66 8/12 11/19 W + 0 % 64/66 12/12 18/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Bulgaria 3 ] ]] + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
48 5 2 5 Cambodia y ] 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 65/66 13/13 8/8 Z W 5 %] 66/66 13/13 8/8 + 5 W ) % 7 41/66 13/13 2/8 ]% W W% Z 62/66 12/13 7/8 14m (2010) W )] Q 0 61/66 13/13 6/8 Q W Z % 7 + 65/66 13/13 7/8 13% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 64/66 13/13 7/8 W + 0 % 55/66 13/13 6/8 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Cambodia 3 ] , + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
49 Cameroon Douala, Yaoundé, Bamenda 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 62/66 8/9 15/16 Z W 5 %] 64/66 9/9 15/16 Sub-Saharan 5 W ) % 7 46/66 2/9 10/16 ]% W W% Z 57/66 7/9 13/16 20m (2010) W )] Q 0 63/66 7/9 15/16 Q W Z % 7 + 57/66 6/9 14/16 20% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 61/66 8/9 14/16 W + 0 % 58/66 8/9 13/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Cameroon 3 ] , % R 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
50 Canada Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 7/66 5/12 7/23 Z W 5 %] 11/66 5/12 11/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 7/66 3/12 7/23 ]% W W% Z 14/66 9/12 14/23 34m (2010) W )] Q 0 6/66 4/12 6/23 Q W Z % 7 + 13/66 7/12 13/23 34% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 16/66 9/12 16/23 W + 0 % 10/66 6/12 10/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Canada 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
51 Chile 5 ] 3 5 ] 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 17/66 1/12 1/19 Z W 5 %] 18/66 1/12 1/19 , 5 W ) % 7 44/66 1/12 9/19 ]% W W% Z 18/66 1/12 1/19 17m (2010) W )] Q 0 16/66 1/12 1/19 Q W Z % 7 + 20/66 1/12 1/19 43% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 18/66 1/12 1/19 W + 0 % 27/66 1/12 2/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Chile 3 ] ]] , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
52 China 2 = 5 5 Q% % 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 37/66 11/13 7/16 Z W 5 %] 31/66 9/13 3/16 + 5 W ) % 7 25/66 9/13 2/16 ]% W W% Z 64/66 13/13 16/16 1,341m (2010) W )] Q 0 26/66 7/13 2/16 Q W Z % 7 + 43/66 12/13 8/16 3% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 44/66 8/13 6/16 W + 0 % 25/66 8/13 2/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 China 3 ] , + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
53 Colombia Bogota, Medellin, Cali 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 27/66 4/12 5/19 Z W 5 %] 34/66 5/12 7/19 , 5 W ) % 7 64/66 12/12 19/19 ]% W W% Z 42/66 8/12 12/19 46m (2010) W )] Q 0 18/66 2/12 2/19 Q W Z % 7 + 27/66 4/12 4/19 31% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 29/66 3/12 7/19 W + 0 % 49/66 6/12 14/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Colombia 3 ] ]] , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
54 Croatia 5 ] 5 Z = @ 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 33/66 4/12 23/23 Z W 5 %] 35/66 5/12 23/23 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 29/66 7/12 22/23 ]% W W% Z 26/66 5/12 21/23 4m (2010) W )] Q 0 33/66 4/12 22/23 Q W Z % 7 + 37/66 6/12 23/23 23% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 32/66 6/12 22/23 W + 0 % 37/66 6/12 23/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 3 ] ^ + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
55 Czech Republic Prague, Brno, Ostrava 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 21/66 3/12 19/23 Z W 5 %] 23/66 3/12 22/23 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 23/66 4/12 20/23 ]% W W% Z 9/66 2/12 9/23 11m (2010) W )] Q 0 28/66 3/12 21/23 Q W Z % 7 + 25/66 3/12 21/23 17% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 20/66 2/12 19/23 W + 0 % 11/66 1/12 11/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Z ]% 3 ] ^ + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
56 Q V 5 Dominican Republic de los Caballeros, San Cristobal 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 46/66 8/12 11/19 Z W 5 %] 49/66 9/12 15/19 , 5 W ) % 7 57/66 10/12 16/19 ]% W W% Z 35/66 7/12 10/19 10m (2010) W )] Q 0 39/66 8/12 9/19 Q W Z % 7 + 52/66 9/12 16/19 31% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 39/66 7/12 12/19 W + 0 % 43/66 4/12 10/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 V Z ]% 3 ] ]] , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
57 0 5 7 ] 5 El Salvador Ana 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 32/66 5/12 4/16 Z W 5 %] 32/66 4/12 4/16 , 5 W ) % 7 48/66 2/12 11/16 ]% W W% Z 34/66 6/12 3/16 6m (2010) W )] Q 0 47/66 10/12 10/16 Q W Z % 7 + 24/66 2/12 2/16 34% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 37/66 6/12 3/16 W + 0 % 54/66 8/12 12/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 El Salvador 3 ] , , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
58 Estonia Tallinn, Tartu, Narva 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 10/66 1/12 10/23 Z W 5 %] 10/66 1/12 10/23 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 17/66 1/12 16/23 ]% W W% Z 8/66 1/12 8/23 1m (2010) W )] Q 0 13/66 1/12 13/23 Q W Z % 7 + 10/66 1/12 10/23 43% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 6/66 1/12 6/23 W + 0 % 14/66 2/12 14/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Estonia 3 ] ^ + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
59 Addis Ababa, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia @; 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 63/66 9/9 7/8 Z W 5 %] 44/66 4/9 2/8 Sub-Saharan 5 W ) % 7 54/66 4/9 5/8 ]% W W% Z 65/66 9/9 8/8 85m (2010) W )] Q 0 60/66 5/9 5/8 Q W Z % 7 + 62/66 7/9 5/8 5% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 42/66 4/9 2/8 W + 0 % 50/66 6/9 5/8 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 + ] 3 ] , % R 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
60 France 5 5 ,7 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 15/66 9/12 15/23 Z W 5 %] 14/66 7/12 14/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 16/66 9/12 15/23 ]% W W% Z 15/66 10/12 15/23 63m (2010) W )] Q 0 17/66 10/12 16/23 Q W Z % 7 + 14/66 8/12 14/23 20% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 14/66 8/12 14/23 W + 0 % 22/66 12/12 22/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 W 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
61 Germany 2 5 ^ % 5 % 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 6/66 4/12 6/23 Z W 5 %] 12/66 6/12 12/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 9/66 5/12 9/23 ]% W W% Z 6/66 5/12 6/23 82m (2010) W )] Q 0 11/66 7/12 11/23 Q W Z % 7 + 8/66 5/12 8/23 8% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 2/66 2/12 2/23 W + 0 % 9/66 5/12 9/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Q 7 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
62 Ghana 5 5 y% 5 3 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 19/66 1/9 1/8 Z W 5 %] 41/66 3/9 1/8 Sub-Saharan 5 W ) % 7 47/66 3/9 4/8 ]% W W% Z 22/66 1/9 1/8 24m (2010) W )] Q 0 31/66 2/9 1/8 Q W Z % 7 + 44/66 3/9 1/8 18% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 26/66 2/9 1/8 W + 0 % 31/66 2/9 1/8 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Q 3 ] , % R 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
63 Q% 75 6 5 Guatemala Nueva 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 53/66 10/12 12/16 Z W 5 %] 42/66 6/12 8/16 , 5 W ) % 7 52/66 6/12 13/16 ]% W W% Z 43/66 9/12 7/16 14m (2010) W )] Q 0 38/66 7/12 6/16 Q W Z % 7 + 46/66 8/12 9/16 12% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 51/66 9/12 10/16 W + 0 % 51/66 7/12 9/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Q% 3 ] , , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
64 Hong Kong SAR, China ^ y 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 14/66 4/13 14/23 Z W 5 %] 6/66 4/13 6/23 + 5 W ) % 7 1/66 1/13 1/23 ]% W W% Z 21/66 5/13 20/23 7m (2010) W )] Q 0 5/66 2/13 5/23 Q W Z % 7 + 18/66 6/13 18/23 100% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 12/66 3/13 12/23 W + 0 % 2/66 1/13 2/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 ^ y 5Z5 3 ] ^ + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
65 India % 5 V 5 y @ 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 24/66 1/3 2/16 Z W 5 %] 51/66 1/3 10/16 South Asia W ) % 7 65/66 2/3 15/16 ]% W W% Z 36/66 1/3 4/16 1,216m (2010) W )] Q 0 25/66 1/3 1/16 Q W Z % 7 + 56/66 1/3 13/16 4% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 48/66 1/3 8/16 W + 0 % 35/66 1/3 6/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 India 3 ] , South Asia
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
66 Indonesia @ 5 % 7 5 2 % 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 22/66 6/13 1/16 Z W 5 %] 47/66 12/13 9/16 + 5 W ) % 7 37/66 10/13 7/16 ]% W W% Z 29/66 6/13 1/16 234m (2010) W )] Q 0 29/66 8/13 3/16 Q W Z % 7 + 32/66 7/13 3/16 7% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 41/66 7/13 4/16 W + 0 % 26/66 9/13 3/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Indonesia 3 ] , + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.5 0.5 0.5 , 0.5 in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
67 Iran 3 5 5 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 58/66 5/5 17/19 Z W 5 %] 38/66 3/5 8/19 + ] 5 W ) % 7 40/66 5/5 7/19 ]% W W% Z 66/66 5/5 19/19 75m (2010) W )] Q 0 41/66 3/5 10/19 Q W Z % 7 + 29/66 3/5 6/19 17% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 28/66 3/5 6/19 W + 0 % 39/66 3/5 9/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Iran 3 ] ]] + ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
68 Italy Z 5 5 ] ] 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 29/66 12/12 21/23 Z W 5 %] 22/66 12/12 21/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 33/66 12/12 23/23 ]% W W% Z 20/66 12/12 19/23 60m (2010) W )] Q 0 35/66 12/12 23/23 Q W Z % 7 + 30/66 12/12 22/23 14% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 33/66 12/12 23/23 W + 0 % 16/66 8/12 16/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 7 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
69 y 5 5 ] Jamaica Town 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 38/66 6/12 7/19 Z W 5 %] 25/66 3/12 3/19 , 5 W ) % 7 55/66 8/12 14/19 ]% W W% Z 31/66 4/12 8/19 3m (2010) W )] Q 0 58/66 12/12 19/19 Q W Z % 7 + 41/66 7/12 12/19 32% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 36/66 5/12 10/19 W + 0 % 34/66 2/12 6/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Jamaica 3 ] ]] , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
70 Japan 3 @7 5 @ 5 ) @ 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 11/66 3/13 11/23 Z W 5 %] 5/66 3/13 5/23 + 5 W ) % 7 4/66 3/13 4/23 ]% W W% Z 16/66 3/13 16/23 127m (2010) W )] Q 0 7/66 3/13 7/23 Q W Z % 7 + 4/66 2/13 4/23 40% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 7/66 2/13 7/23 W + 0 % 12/66 4/13 12/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 ] 3 ] ^ + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
71 Jordan 5 5 5 _ 5 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 36/66 2/5 6/16 Z W 5 %] 27/66 2/5 1/16 + ] 5 W ) % 7 26/66 2/5 3/16 ]% W W% Z 56/66 3/5 12/16 6m (2010) W )] Q 0 32/66 2/5 4/16 Q W Z % 7 + 21/66 2/5 1/16 29% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 22/66 2/5 1/16 W + 0 % 30/66 2/5 4/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Jordan 3 ] , + ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
72 Kazakhstan 5 75 5 5 7 @ 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 59/66 11/12 18/19 Z W 5 %] 43/66 8/12 11/19 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 27/66 5/12 3/19 ]% W W% Z 46/66 9/12 14/19 16m (2010) W )] Q 0 43/66 7/12 12/19 Q W Z % 7 + 31/66 4/12 7/19 16% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 25/66 3/12 4/19 W + 0 % 38/66 7/12 8/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 y @ 3 ] ]] + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
73 Kenya Nairobi, Mombasa, Nakuru 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 61/66 7/9 6/8 Z W 5 %] 63/66 8/9 7/8 Sub-Saharan 5 W ) % 7 58/66 5/9 6/8 ]% W W% Z 52/66 5/9 5/8 40m (2010) W )] Q 0 64/66 8/9 7/8 Q W Z % 7 + 63/66 8/9 6/8 11% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 59/66 7/9 5/8 W + 0 % 41/66 3/9 3/8 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 y 7 3 ] , % R 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
74 Kyrgyzstan Bishkek, Osh, Djalalabd 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 57/66 10/12 5/8 Z W 5 %] 61/66 12/12 5/8 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 30/66 8/12 1/8 ]% W W% Z 50/66 11/12 4/8 5m (2010) W )] Q 0 56/66 12/12 4/8 Q W Z % 7 + 48/66 9/12 2/8 22% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 58/66 11/12 4/8 W + 0 % 60/66 11/12 7/8 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 y7 7 3 ] , + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W 0.50.5 do not resort 0.5 7 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.50.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
75 Lebanon 2 % 5 3 ] 5 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 39/66 3/5 8/19 Z W 5 %] 48/66 4/5 14/19 + ] 5 W ) % 7 34/66 3/5 6/19 ]% W W% Z 27/66 1/5 5/19 4m (2010) W )] Q 0 57/66 5/5 18/19 Q W Z % 7 + 61/66 5/5 19/19 67% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 52/66 5/5 17/19 W + 0 % 45/66 4/5 12/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 , 3 ] ]] + ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
76 Liberia Monrovia 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 45/66 4/9 2/8 Z W 5 %] 62/66 7/9 6/8 Sub-Saharan 5 W ) % 7 60/66 7/9 8/8 ]% W W% Z 41/66 4/9 2/8 4m (2010) W )] Q 0 66/66 9/9 8/8 Q W Z % 7 + 66/66 9/9 8/8 27% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 65/66 9/9 8/8 W + 0 % 65/66 9/9 8/8 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 , 3 ] , % R 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
77 Malaysia y% ,% ]% 5 ] 5 2 % 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 34/66 9/13 6/19 Z W 5 %] 26/66 7/13 4/19 + 5 W ) % 7 12/66 6/13 1/19 ]% W W% Z 59/66 11/13 18/19 28m (2010) W )] Q 0 42/66 10/13 11/19 Q W Z % 7 + 40/66 10/13 11/19 13% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 47/66 9/13 15/19 W + 0 % 33/66 11/13 5/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 7 3 ] ]] + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
78 6 75 Q% = 5 Mexico 7 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 40/66 7/12 9/19 Z W 5 %] 53/66 10/12 17/19 , 5 W ) % 7 53/66 7/12 13/19 ]% W W% Z 45/66 10/12 13/19 109m (2010) W )] Q 0 27/66 4/12 5/19 Q W Z % 7 + 35/66 6/12 8/19 26% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 57/66 11/12 18/19 W + 0 % 63/66 11/12 17/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Mexico 3 ] ]] , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
79 Morocco 5 Z 5 W 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 41/66 4/5 8/16 Z W 5 %] 59/66 5/5 13/16 + ] 5 W ) % 7 35/66 4/5 5/16 ]% W W% Z 60/66 4/5 14/16 32m (2010) W )] Q 0 49/66 4/5 11/16 Q W Z % 7 + 47/66 4/5 10/16 19% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 45/66 4/5 7/16 W + 0 % 59/66 5/5 14/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Morocco 3 ] , + ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
80 5 5 Z 5 Netherlands ;Q 0 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 5/66 3/12 5/23 Z W 5 %] 7/66 3/12 7/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 18/66 10/12 17/23 ]% W W% Z 3/66 3/12 3/23 17m (2010) W )] Q 0 3/66 2/12 3/23 Q W Z % 7 + 5/66 3/12 5/23 16% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 3/66 3/12 3/23 W + 0 % 6/66 2/12 6/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Netherlands 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
81 Auckland, Christchurch, New Zealand Wellington 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 2/66 1/13 2/23 Z W 5 %] 1/66 1/13 1/23 + 5 W ) % 7 11/66 5/13 11/23 ]% W W% Z 4/66 1/13 4/23 4m (2010) W )] Q 0 2/66 1/13 2/23 Q W Z % 7 + 3/66 1/13 3/23 48% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 4/66 1/13 4/23 W + 0 % 3/66 2/13 3/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 New Zealand 3 ] ^ + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
82 Nigeria , 5 y 5 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 44/66 3/9 10/16 Z W 5 %] 52/66 5/9 11/16 Sub-Saharan 5 W ) % 7 63/66 9/9 14/16 ]% W W% Z 55/66 6/9 11/16 156m (2010) W )] Q 0 59/66 4/9 13/16 Q W Z % 7 + 50/66 4/9 11/16 11% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 34/66 3/9 2/16 W + 0 % 53/66 7/9 11/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Nigeria 3 ] , % R 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
83 Norway Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 1/66 1/12 1/23 Z W 5 %] 3/66 2/12 3/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 3/66 1/12 3/23 ]% W W% Z 2/66 2/12 2/23 5m (2010) W )] Q 0 10/66 6/12 10/23 Q W Z % 7 + 2/66 2/12 2/23 25% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 1/66 1/12 1/23 W + 0 % 1/66 1/12 1/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 ] 7 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
84 Pakistan y 5 , 5 W 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 60/66 3/3 14/16 Z W 5 %] 65/66 3/3 16/16 South Asia W ) % 7 66/66 3/3 16/16 ]% W W% Z 63/66 3/3 15/16 167m (2010) W )] Q 0 65/66 3/3 16/16 Q W Z % 7 + 59/66 3/3 15/16 14% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 66/66 3/3 16/16 W + 0 % 61/66 3/3 15/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Pakistan 3 ] , South Asia
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
85 Peru , 5 5 _% ] 5 3 %= 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 23/66 2/12 2/19 Z W 5 %] 45/66 7/12 12/19 , 5 W ) % 7 50/66 4/12 11/19 ]% W W% Z 24/66 2/12 3/19 30m (2010) W )] Q 0 20/66 3/12 3/19 Q W Z % 7 + 28/66 5/12 5/19 34% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 49/66 8/12 16/19 W + 0 % 36/66 3/12 7/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Peru 3 ] ]] , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
86 Philippines Manila, Davao, Cebu 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 31/66 8/13 3/16 Z W 5 %] 33/66 10/13 5/16 + 5 W ) % 7 39/66 12/13 9/16 ]% W W% Z 40/66 9/13 6/16 94m (2010) W )] Q 0 46/66 12/13 9/16 Q W Z % 7 + 34/66 9/13 5/16 15% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 56/66 12/13 13/16 W + 0 % 47/66 12/13 8/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 ]] 3 ] , + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
87 Poland 5 5 , 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 13/66 2/12 13/23 Z W 5 %] 21/66 2/12 20/23 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 19/66 2/12 18/23 ]% W W% Z 10/66 3/12 10/23 38m (2010) W )] Q 0 23/66 2/12 20/23 Q W Z % 7 + 22/66 2/12 20/23 8% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 30/66 5/12 21/23 W + 0 % 17/66 3/12 17/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Poland 3 ] ^ + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
88 Romania Bucharest, Iasi, Cluj 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 43/66 5/12 10/19 Z W 5 %] 30/66 4/12 6/19 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 20/66 3/12 2/19 ]% W W% Z 23/66 4/12 2/19 21m (2010) W )] Q 0 36/66 5/12 7/19 Q W Z % 7 + 38/66 7/12 10/19 12% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 35/66 7/12 9/19 W + 0 % 28/66 5/12 3/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Z 3 ] ]] + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
89 Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Russia Novosibirsk 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 55/66 9/12 16/19 Z W 5 %] 40/66 7/12 10/19 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 45/66 12/12 10/19 ]% W W% Z 47/66 10/12 15/19 140m (2010) W )] Q 0 52/66 10/12 16/19 Q W Z % 7 + 49/66 10/12 14/19 12% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 40/66 9/12 13/19 W + 0 % 23/66 4/12 1/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Z% 3 ] ]] + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 branch 0.0 +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
90 Senegal Dakar, Thies, Diourbel 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 51/66 5/9 11/16 Z W 5 %] 37/66 2/9 7/16 Sub-Saharan 5 W ) % 7 36/66 1/9 6/16 ]% W W% Z 38/66 3/9 5/16 13m (2010) W )] Q 0 62/66 6/9 14/16 Q W Z % 7 + 39/66 2/9 6/16 25% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 43/66 5/9 5/16 W + 0 % 46/66 5/9 7/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Senegal 3 ] , % R 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
91 Singapore ] 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 20/66 5/13 18/23 Z W 5 %] 4/66 2/13 4/23 + 5 W ) % 7 2/66 2/13 2/23 ]% W W% Z 39/66 8/13 22/23 5m (2010) W )] Q 0 19/66 6/13 17/23 Q W Z % 7 + 11/66 4/13 11/23 89% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 15/66 5/13 15/23 W + 0 % 5/66 3/13 5/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 ] 3 ] ^ + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
92 % 5 ] 3 5 South Africa Durban 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 25/66 2/9 3/19 Z W 5 %] 29/66 1/9 5/19 Sub-Saharan 5 W ) % 7 61/66 8/9 17/19 ]% W W% Z 30/66 2/9 7/19 50m (2010) W )] Q 0 24/66 1/9 4/19 Q W Z % 7 + 23/66 1/9 2/19 20% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 23/66 1/9 2/19 W + 0 % 29/66 1/9 4/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 % 5 3 ] ]] % R 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
93 South Korea Seoul, Busan, Incheon 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 30/66 7/13 22/23 Z W 5 %] 20/66 6/13 19/23 + 5 W ) % 7 21/66 7/13 19/23 ]% W W% Z 17/66 4/13 17/23 49m (2010) W )] Q 0 14/66 5/13 14/23 Q W Z % 7 + 16/66 5/13 16/23 32% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 17/66 6/13 17/23 W + 0 % 21/66 6/13 21/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 % y 3 ] ^ + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
94 Spain Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 18/66 11/12 17/23 Z W 5 %] 19/66 11/12 18/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 24/66 11/12 21/23 ]% W W% Z 12/66 7/12 12/23 46m (2010) W )] Q 0 22/66 11/12 19/23 Q W Z % 7 + 19/66 11/12 19/23 25% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 19/66 10/12 18/23 W + 0 % 19/66 10/12 19/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 ] 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
95 Sweden @ 5 Q 5 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 3/66 2/12 3/23 Z W 5 %] 2/66 1/12 2/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 5/66 2/12 5/23 ]% W W% Z 1/66 1/12 1/23 9m (2010) W )] Q 0 1/66 1/12 1/23 Q W Z % 7 + 1/66 1/12 1/23 22% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 5/66 4/12 5/23 W + 0 % 7/66 3/12 7/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Sweden 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
96 Thailand 2 @ @5 ] % 5 @ y 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 42/66 12/13 9/16 Z W 5 %] 28/66 8/13 2/16 + 5 W ) % 7 38/66 11/13 8/16 ]% W W% Z 32/66 7/13 2/16 64m (2010) W )] Q 0 45/66 11/13 8/16 Q W Z % 7 + 33/66 8/13 4/16 12% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 53/66 11/13 11/16 W + 0 % 24/66 7/13 1/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Thailand 3 ] , + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
97 Turkey % 5 5 @ 5 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 52/66 8/12 15/19 Z W 5 %] 39/66 6/12 9/19 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 43/66 11/12 8/19 ]% W W% Z 58/66 12/12 17/19 71m (2010) W )] Q 0 48/66 8/12 14/19 Q W Z % 7 + 36/66 5/12 9/19 24% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 27/66 4/12 5/19 W + 0 % 48/66 8/12 13/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 3% @ 7 3 ] ]] + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
98 Uganda y ] 5 @ 5 %@ 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 54/66 6/9 4/8 Z W 5 %] 56/66 6/9 3/8 Sub-Saharan 5 W ) % 7 59/66 6/9 7/8 ]% W W% Z 61/66 8/9 6/8 34m (2010) W )] Q 0 51/66 3/9 2/8 Q W Z % 7 + 53/66 5/9 3/8 5% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 55/66 6/9 3/8 W + 0 % 42/66 4/9 4/8 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 3 ] , % R 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
99 Ukraine y7 05 y @ 05 V ] ] 0 @ 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 64/66 12/12 16/16 Z W 5 %] 57/66 11/12 12/16 + +% ] 5 W ) % 7 28/66 6/12 4/16 ]% W W% Z 44/66 8/12 8/16 45m (2010) W )] Q 0 53/66 11/12 12/16 Q W Z % 7 + 64/66 12/12 16/16 12% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 63/66 12/12 15/16 W + 0 % 52/66 9/12 10/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 @ 3 ] , + +% ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
100 United Arab Emirates Dubai, Sharjah, Abu-Dhabi 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 28/66 1/5 20/23 Z W 5 %] 13/66 1/5 13/23 + ] 5 W ) % 7 6/66 1/5 6/23 ]% W W% Z 51/66 2/5 23/23 5m (2010) W )] Q 0 21/66 1/5 18/23 Q W Z % 7 + 12/66 1/5 12/23 56% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 11/66 1/5 11/23 W + 0 % 4/66 1/5 4/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 5 + 3 ] ^ + ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
101 United Kingdom , 5 2 5 Q 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 9/66 7/12 9/23 Z W 5 %] 16/66 9/12 16/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 14/66 7/12 13/23 ]% W W% Z 13/66 8/12 13/23 62m (2010) W )] Q 0 4/66 3/12 4/23 Q W Z % 7 + 6/66 4/12 6/23 19% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 10/66 7/12 10/23 W + 0 % 13/66 7/12 13/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 y 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
102 United States ] @5 , 5 5 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ^ Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 16/66 10/12 16/23 Z W 5 %] 17/66 10/12 17/23 +% ] ] 5 W ) % 7 13/66 6/12 12/23 ]% W W% Z 19/66 11/12 18/23 310m (2010) W )] Q 0 12/66 8/12 12/23 Q W Z % 7 + 15/66 9/12 15/23 13% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 21/66 11/12 20/23 W + 0 % 20/66 11/12 20/23 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 3 ] ^ +% ] ] 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
103 Caracas, Maracaibo, Venezuela Barquisimeto 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] ]] Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 66/66 12/12 19/19 Z W 5 %] 54/66 11/12 18/19 , 5 W ) % 7 62/66 11/12 18/19 ]% W W% Z 53/66 12/12 16/19 29m (2010) W )] Q 0 55/66 11/12 17/19 Q W Z % 7 + 60/66 12/12 18/19 22% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 60/66 12/12 19/19 W + 0 % 66/66 12/12 19/19 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 % 3 ] ]] , 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
104 ^ 75 ^ ] 5 ^ Vietnam Phong 1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income Z% , 6 W Score Q Z @ Z Q %] , Z @ Z @ W , Q 0 35/66 10/13 5/16 Z W 5 %] 36/66 11/13 6/16 + 5 W ) % 7 22/66 8/13 1/16 ]% W W% Z 54/66 10/13 10/16 88m (2010) W )] Q 0 40/66 9/13 7/16 Q W Z % 7 + 42/66 11/13 7/16 14% in three largest cities W Access to Civil Justice 50/66 10/13 9/16 W + 0 % 32/66 10/13 5/16 2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors ] 5 % R ] 7 % ] ] 7 3 ] ] % R ^ _6 % @ ] ^ _
y 7 Vietnam 3 ] , + 5
Accountable Government Security and Fundamental Rights Q 0 ] 7 % 5 1.0 1.0 0 5 W% 0 7 %] 7 Q 0 ] 7 ] 7 =% 7
] W do not resort 0.5 7 0.5 to violence association to redress grievances 5 ] %] auditing and in the review judicial 0.0 0.0 branch +_% 5 7 treatment ] 0 7 discrimination
5 Q 0 %] the executive branch misconduct Z W % 7 and religion ]
3 ] Q 0 ] W ] V% ] subject to the law 7 R 0 @ 6]
Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice ] % , ] 3 0 V% ] 1.0 1.0 c 0 % 6] ] % , ]% _% ] 7 ] ] 0 =% government % V% ] 0.50.5 0.5 , in administrative stable 0 =% ] 7 %] %]
0 0.0 0.0 =% Administrative Z 7 ] ] ] ] government without ]% unreasonable ] ] % 7 0 =% not subject to 7 c 0 Q 0 unreasonable ) 7 regulations without ] ] % =% are available 0 =% 7 7 c 0 7 c 0 Q 0 % ) 0 7 requested is available 0 5VZ 5 7 c 0 ] 5 c 0
105 Data Tables
Data Tables
This section presents data tables for the eight factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index included in this report. The first group of tables presents scores, global rankings, regional rankings, and income group rankings for all countries, organized by factor. The second group of tables presents countries’ rankings organized by region. The final group of tables presents countries’ rankings by income group. All country classifications can be found in the Data Notes section of this report and in Botero, J and Ponce, A. (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”, available online at www.worldjusticeproject.org.
107 WJP Rule of Law Index
Factor 1: Limited Government Powers Factor 2: Absence of Corruption
Q Z Q %] Q Z Q %] % 7 Score % 7 Score Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Albania 49/66 6/12 13/19 Albania 55/66 10/12 19/19 Argentina 47/66 9/12 12/19 Argentina 46/66 8/12 13/19 Australia 4/66 2/13 4/23 Australia 9/66 5/13 9/23 Austria 8/66 6/12 8/23 Austria 8/66 4/12 8/23 Bangladesh 48/66 2/3 3/8 Bangladesh 58/66 2/3 4/8 Belgium 12/66 8/12 12/23 Belgium 15/66 8/12 15/23 Bolivia 56/66 11/12 13/16 Bolivia 60/66 12/12 14/16 2 26/66 3/12 4/19 2 24/66 2/12 2/19 Bulgaria 50/66 7/12 14/19 Bulgaria 50/66 9/12 16/19 Cambodia 65/66 13/13 8/8 Cambodia 66/66 13/13 8/8 Cameroon 62/66 8/9 15/16 Cameroon 64/66 9/9 15/16 Canada 7/66 5/12 7/23 Canada 11/66 5/12 11/23 Chile 17/66 1/12 1/19 Chile 18/66 1/12 1/19 China 37/66 11/13 7/16 China 31/66 9/13 3/16 Colombia 27/66 4/12 5/19 Colombia 34/66 5/12 7/19 Croatia 33/66 4/12 23/23 Croatia 35/66 5/12 23/23 Z ]% 21/66 3/12 19/23 Z ]% 23/66 3/12 22/23 V Z ]% 46/66 8/12 11/19 V Z ]% 49/66 9/12 15/19 El Salvador 32/66 5/12 4/16 El Salvador 32/66 4/12 4/16 Estonia 10/66 1/12 10/23 Estonia 10/66 1/12 10/23 + ] 63/66 9/9 7/8 + ] 44/66 4/9 2/8 W 15/66 9/12 15/23 W 14/66 7/12 14/23 Q 7 6/66 4/12 6/23 Q 7 12/66 6/12 12/23 Q 19/66 1/9 1/8 Q 41/66 3/9 1/8 Q% 53/66 10/12 12/16 Q% 42/66 6/12 8/16 ^ y 5Z5 14/66 4/13 14/23 ^ y 5Z5 6/66 4/13 6/23 India 24/66 1/3 2/16 India 51/66 1/3 10/16 Indonesia 22/66 6/13 1/16 Indonesia 47/66 12/13 9/16 Iran 58/66 5/5 17/19 Iran 38/66 3/5 8/19 7 29/66 12/12 21/23 7 22/66 12/12 21/23 Jamaica 38/66 6/12 7/19 Jamaica 25/66 3/12 3/19 ] 11/66 3/13 11/23 ] 5/66 3/13 5/23 Jordan 36/66 2/5 6/16 Jordan 27/66 2/5 1/16 y @ 59/66 11/12 18/19 y @ 43/66 8/12 11/19 y 7 61/66 7/9 6/8 y 7 63/66 8/9 7/8 y7 7 57/66 10/12 5/8 y7 7 61/66 12/12 5/8 , 39/66 3/5 8/19 , 48/66 4/5 14/19 , 45/66 4/9 2/8 , 62/66 7/9 6/8 7 34/66 9/13 6/19 7 26/66 7/13 4/19 Mexico 40/66 7/12 9/19 Mexico 53/66 10/12 17/19 Morocco 41/66 4/5 8/16 Morocco 59/66 5/5 13/16 Netherlands 5/66 3/12 5/23 Netherlands 7/66 3/12 7/23 New Zealand 2/66 1/13 2/23 New Zealand 1/66 1/13 1/23 Nigeria 44/66 3/9 10/16 Nigeria 52/66 5/9 11/16 ] 7 1/66 1/12 1/23 ] 7 3/66 2/12 3/23 Pakistan 60/66 3/3 14/16 Pakistan 65/66 3/3 16/16 Peru 23/66 2/12 2/19 Peru 45/66 7/12 12/19 ]] 31/66 8/13 3/16 ]] 33/66 10/13 5/16 Poland 13/66 2/12 13/23 Poland 21/66 2/12 20/23 Z 43/66 5/12 10/19 Z 30/66 4/12 6/19 Z% 55/66 9/12 16/19 Z% 40/66 7/12 10/19 Senegal 51/66 5/9 11/16 Senegal 37/66 2/9 7/16 ] 20/66 5/13 18/23 ] 4/66 2/13 4/23 % 5 25/66 2/9 3/19 % 5 29/66 1/9 5/19 % y 30/66 7/13 22/23 % y 20/66 6/13 19/23 ] 18/66 11/12 17/23 ] 19/66 11/12 18/23 Sweden 3/66 2/12 3/23 Sweden 2/66 1/12 2/23 Thailand 42/66 12/13 9/16 Thailand 28/66 8/13 2/16 3% @ 7 52/66 8/12 15/19 3% @ 7 39/66 6/12 9/19 54/66 6/9 4/8 56/66 6/9 3/8 @ 64/66 12/12 16/16 @ 57/66 11/12 12/16 5 + 28/66 1/5 20/23 5 + 13/66 1/5 13/23 y 9/66 7/12 9/23 y 16/66 9/12 16/23 16/66 10/12 16/23 17/66 10/12 17/23 % 66/66 12/12 19/19 % 54/66 11/12 18/19 Vietnam 35/66 10/13 5/16 Vietnam 36/66 11/13 6/16
108 Data Tables
Factor 3: Order and Security Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
Q Z Q %] Q Z Q %] Score Score Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Albania 31/66 9/12 4/19 Albania 28/66 6/12 6/19 Argentina 56/66 9/12 15/19 Argentina 33/66 5/12 9/19 Australia 10/66 4/13 10/23 Australia 7/66 2/13 7/23 Austria 8/66 4/12 8/23 Austria 5/66 4/12 5/23 Bangladesh 42/66 1/3 3/8 Bangladesh 48/66 2/3 3/8 Belgium 15/66 8/12 14/23 Belgium 11/66 6/12 11/23 Bolivia 49/66 3/12 12/16 Bolivia 49/66 11/12 9/16 2 51/66 5/12 12/19 2 25/66 3/12 4/19 Bulgaria 32/66 10/12 5/19 Bulgaria 37/66 7/12 11/19 Cambodia 41/66 13/13 2/8 Cambodia 62/66 12/13 7/8 Cameroon 46/66 2/9 10/16 Cameroon 57/66 7/9 13/16 Canada 7/66 3/12 7/23 Canada 14/66 9/12 14/23 Chile 44/66 1/12 9/19 Chile 18/66 1/12 1/19 China 25/66 9/13 2/16 China 64/66 13/13 16/16 Colombia 64/66 12/12 19/19 Colombia 42/66 8/12 12/19 Croatia 29/66 7/12 22/23 Croatia 26/66 5/12 21/23 Z ]% 23/66 4/12 20/23 Z ]% 9/66 2/12 9/23 V Z ]% 57/66 10/12 16/19 V Z ]% 35/66 7/12 10/19 El Salvador 48/66 2/12 11/16 El Salvador 34/66 6/12 3/16 Estonia 17/66 1/12 16/23 Estonia 8/66 1/12 8/23 + ] 54/66 4/9 5/8 + ] 65/66 9/9 8/8 W 16/66 9/12 15/23 W 15/66 10/12 15/23 Q 7 9/66 5/12 9/23 Q 7 6/66 5/12 6/23 Q 47/66 3/9 4/8 Q 22/66 1/9 1/8 Q% 52/66 6/12 13/16 Q% 43/66 9/12 7/16 ^ y 5Z5 1/66 1/13 1/23 ^ y 5Z5 21/66 5/13 20/23 India 65/66 2/3 15/16 India 36/66 1/3 4/16 Indonesia 37/66 10/13 7/16 Indonesia 29/66 6/13 1/16 Iran 40/66 5/5 7/19 Iran 66/66 5/5 19/19 7 33/66 12/12 23/23 7 20/66 12/12 19/23 Jamaica 55/66 8/12 14/19 Jamaica 31/66 4/12 8/19 ] 4/66 3/13 4/23 ] 16/66 3/13 16/23 Jordan 26/66 2/5 3/16 Jordan 56/66 3/5 12/16 y @ 27/66 5/12 3/19 y @ 46/66 9/12 14/19 y 7 58/66 5/9 6/8 y 7 52/66 5/9 5/8 y7 7 30/66 8/12 1/8 y7 7 50/66 11/12 4/8 , 34/66 3/5 6/19 , 27/66 1/5 5/19 , 60/66 7/9 8/8 , 41/66 4/9 2/8 7 12/66 6/13 1/19 7 59/66 11/13 18/19 Mexico 53/66 7/12 13/19 Mexico 45/66 10/12 13/19 Morocco 35/66 4/5 5/16 Morocco 60/66 4/5 14/16 Netherlands 18/66 10/12 17/23 Netherlands 3/66 3/12 3/23 New Zealand 11/66 5/13 11/23 New Zealand 4/66 1/13 4/23 Nigeria 63/66 9/9 14/16 Nigeria 55/66 6/9 11/16 ] 7 3/66 1/12 3/23 ] 7 2/66 2/12 2/23 Pakistan 66/66 3/3 16/16 Pakistan 63/66 3/3 15/16 Peru 50/66 4/12 11/19 Peru 24/66 2/12 3/19 ]] 39/66 12/13 9/16 ]] 40/66 9/13 6/16 Poland 19/66 2/12 18/23 Poland 10/66 3/12 10/23 Z 20/66 3/12 2/19 Z 23/66 4/12 2/19 Z% 45/66 12/12 10/19 Z% 47/66 10/12 15/19 Senegal 36/66 1/9 6/16 Senegal 38/66 3/9 5/16 ] 2/66 2/13 2/23 ] 39/66 8/13 22/23 % 5 61/66 8/9 17/19 % 5 30/66 2/9 7/19 % y 21/66 7/13 19/23 % y 17/66 4/13 17/23 ] 24/66 11/12 21/23 ] 12/66 7/12 12/23 Sweden 5/66 2/12 5/23 Sweden 1/66 1/12 1/23 Thailand 38/66 11/13 8/16 Thailand 32/66 7/13 2/16 3% @ 7 43/66 11/12 8/19 3% @ 7 58/66 12/12 17/19 59/66 6/9 7/8 61/66 8/9 6/8 @ 28/66 6/12 4/16 @ 44/66 8/12 8/16 5 + 6/66 1/5 6/23 5 + 51/66 2/5 23/23 y 14/66 7/12 13/23 y 13/66 8/12 13/23 13/66 6/12 12/23 19/66 11/12 18/23 % 62/66 11/12 18/19 % 53/66 12/12 16/19 Vietnam 22/66 8/13 1/16 Vietnam 54/66 10/13 10/16
109 WJP Rule of Law Index
Factor 5: Open Government Factor 6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement
Q Z Q %] Q Z Q %] Score Score Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Albania 50/66 9/12 15/19 Albania 51/66 11/12 15/19 Argentina 44/66 9/12 13/19 Argentina 54/66 10/12 17/19 Australia 8/66 4/13 8/23 Australia 7/66 3/13 7/23 Austria 9/66 5/12 9/23 Austria 9/66 6/12 9/23 Bangladesh 54/66 2/3 3/8 Bangladesh 58/66 2/3 4/8 Belgium 15/66 9/12 15/23 Belgium 17/66 10/12 17/23 Bolivia 34/66 6/12 5/16 Bolivia 55/66 11/12 12/16 2 30/66 5/12 6/19 2 26/66 3/12 3/19 Bulgaria 37/66 6/12 8/19 Bulgaria 45/66 8/12 13/19 Cambodia 61/66 13/13 6/8 Cambodia 65/66 13/13 7/8 Cameroon 63/66 7/9 15/16 Cameroon 57/66 6/9 14/16 Canada 6/66 4/12 6/23 Canada 13/66 7/12 13/23 Chile 16/66 1/12 1/19 Chile 20/66 1/12 1/19 China 26/66 7/13 2/16 China 43/66 12/13 8/16 Colombia 18/66 2/12 2/19 Colombia 27/66 4/12 4/19 Croatia 33/66 4/12 22/23 Croatia 37/66 6/12 23/23 Z ]% 28/66 3/12 21/23 Z ]% 25/66 3/12 21/23 V Z ]% 39/66 8/12 9/19 V Z ]% 52/66 9/12 16/19 El Salvador 47/66 10/12 10/16 El Salvador 24/66 2/12 2/16 Estonia 13/66 1/12 13/23 Estonia 10/66 1/12 10/23 + ] 60/66 5/9 5/8 + ] 62/66 7/9 5/8 W 17/66 10/12 16/23 W 14/66 8/12 14/23 Q 7 11/66 7/12 11/23 Q 7 8/66 5/12 8/23 Q 31/66 2/9 1/8 Q 44/66 3/9 1/8 Q% 38/66 7/12 6/16 Q% 46/66 8/12 9/16 ^ y 5Z5 5/66 2/13 5/23 ^ y 5Z5 18/66 6/13 18/23 India 25/66 1/3 1/16 India 56/66 1/3 13/16 Indonesia 29/66 8/13 3/16 Indonesia 32/66 7/13 3/16 Iran 41/66 3/5 10/19 Iran 29/66 3/5 6/19 7 35/66 12/12 23/23 7 30/66 12/12 22/23 Jamaica 58/66 12/12 19/19 Jamaica 41/66 7/12 12/19 ] 7/66 3/13 7/23 ] 4/66 2/13 4/23 Jordan 32/66 2/5 4/16 Jordan 21/66 2/5 1/16 y @ 43/66 7/12 12/19 y @ 31/66 4/12 7/19 y 7 64/66 8/9 7/8 y 7 63/66 8/9 6/8 y7 7 56/66 12/12 4/8 y7 7 48/66 9/12 2/8 , 57/66 5/5 18/19 , 61/66 5/5 19/19 , 66/66 9/9 8/8 , 66/66 9/9 8/8 7 42/66 10/13 11/19 7 40/66 10/13 11/19 Mexico 27/66 4/12 5/19 Mexico 35/66 6/12 8/19 Morocco 49/66 4/5 11/16 Morocco 47/66 4/5 10/16 Netherlands 3/66 2/12 3/23 Netherlands 5/66 3/12 5/23 New Zealand 2/66 1/13 2/23 New Zealand 3/66 1/13 3/23 Nigeria 59/66 4/9 13/16 Nigeria 50/66 4/9 11/16 ] 7 10/66 6/12 10/23 ] 7 2/66 2/12 2/23 Pakistan 65/66 3/3 16/16 Pakistan 59/66 3/3 15/16 Peru 20/66 3/12 3/19 Peru 28/66 5/12 5/19 ]] 46/66 12/13 9/16 ]] 34/66 9/13 5/16 Poland 23/66 2/12 20/23 Poland 22/66 2/12 20/23 Z 36/66 5/12 7/19 Z 38/66 7/12 10/19 Z% 52/66 10/12 16/19 Z% 49/66 10/12 14/19 Senegal 62/66 6/9 14/16 Senegal 39/66 2/9 6/16 ] 19/66 6/13 17/23 ] 11/66 4/13 11/23 % 5 24/66 1/9 4/19 % 5 23/66 1/9 2/19 % y 14/66 5/13 14/23 % y 16/66 5/13 16/23 ] 22/66 11/12 19/23 ] 19/66 11/12 19/23 Sweden 1/66 1/12 1/23 Sweden 1/66 1/12 1/23 Thailand 45/66 11/13 8/16 Thailand 33/66 8/13 4/16 3% @ 7 48/66 8/12 14/19 3% @ 7 36/66 5/12 9/19 51/66 3/9 2/8 53/66 5/9 3/8 @ 53/66 11/12 12/16 @ 64/66 12/12 16/16 5 + 21/66 1/5 18/23 5 + 12/66 1/5 12/23 y 4/66 3/12 4/23 y 6/66 4/12 6/23 12/66 8/12 12/23 15/66 9/12 15/23 % 55/66 11/12 17/19 % 60/66 12/12 18/19 Vietnam 40/66 9/13 7/16 Vietnam 42/66 11/13 7/16
110 Data Tables
Factor 7: Access to Civil Justice Factor 8: Effective Criminal Justice
Q Z Q %] Q Z Q %] Score Score Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Z @ Albania 46/66 10/12 14/19 Albania 57/66 10/12 16/19 Argentina 31/66 4/12 8/19 Argentina 56/66 9/12 15/19 Australia 13/66 4/13 13/23 Australia 15/66 5/13 15/23 Austria 8/66 5/12 8/23 Austria 8/66 4/12 8/23 Bangladesh 62/66 2/3 6/8 Bangladesh 40/66 2/3 2/8 Belgium 9/66 6/12 9/23 Belgium 18/66 9/12 18/23 Bolivia 54/66 10/12 12/16 Bolivia 62/66 10/12 16/16 2 24/66 2/12 3/19 2 44/66 5/12 11/19 Bulgaria 38/66 8/12 11/19 Bulgaria 64/66 12/12 18/19 Cambodia 64/66 13/13 7/8 Cambodia 55/66 13/13 6/8 Cameroon 61/66 8/9 14/16 Cameroon 58/66 8/9 13/16 Canada 16/66 9/12 16/23 Canada 10/66 6/12 10/23 Chile 18/66 1/12 1/19 Chile 27/66 1/12 2/19 China 44/66 8/13 6/16 China 25/66 8/13 2/16 Colombia 29/66 3/12 7/19 Colombia 49/66 6/12 14/19 Croatia 32/66 6/12 22/23 Croatia 37/66 6/12 23/23 Z ]% 20/66 2/12 19/23 Z ]% 11/66 1/12 11/23 V Z ]% 39/66 7/12 12/19 V Z ]% 43/66 4/12 10/19 El Salvador 37/66 6/12 3/16 El Salvador 54/66 8/12 12/16 Estonia 6/66 1/12 6/23 Estonia 14/66 2/12 14/23 + ] 42/66 4/9 2/8 + ] 50/66 6/9 5/8 W 14/66 8/12 14/23 W 22/66 12/12 22/23 Q 7 2/66 2/12 2/23 Q 7 9/66 5/12 9/23 Q 26/66 2/9 1/8 Q 31/66 2/9 1/8 Q% 51/66 9/12 10/16 Q% 51/66 7/12 9/16 ^ y 5Z5 12/66 3/13 12/23 ^ y 5Z5 2/66 1/13 2/23 India 48/66 1/3 8/16 India 35/66 1/3 6/16 Indonesia 41/66 7/13 4/16 Indonesia 26/66 9/13 3/16 Iran 28/66 3/5 6/19 Iran 39/66 3/5 9/19 7 33/66 12/12 23/23 7 16/66 8/12 16/23 Jamaica 36/66 5/12 10/19 Jamaica 34/66 2/12 6/19 ] 7/66 2/13 7/23 ] 12/66 4/13 12/23 Jordan 22/66 2/5 1/16 Jordan 30/66 2/5 4/16 y @ 25/66 3/12 4/19 y @ 38/66 7/12 8/19 y 7 59/66 7/9 5/8 y 7 41/66 3/9 3/8 y7 7 58/66 11/12 4/8 y7 7 60/66 11/12 7/8 , 52/66 5/5 17/19 , 45/66 4/5 12/19 , 65/66 9/9 8/8 , 65/66 9/9 8/8 7 47/66 9/13 15/19 7 33/66 11/13 5/19 Mexico 57/66 11/12 18/19 Mexico 63/66 11/12 17/19 Morocco 45/66 4/5 7/16 Morocco 59/66 5/5 14/16 Netherlands 3/66 3/12 3/23 Netherlands 6/66 2/12 6/23 New Zealand 4/66 1/13 4/23 New Zealand 3/66 2/13 3/23 Nigeria 34/66 3/9 2/16 Nigeria 53/66 7/9 11/16 ] 7 1/66 1/12 1/23 ] 7 1/66 1/12 1/23 Pakistan 66/66 3/3 16/16 Pakistan 61/66 3/3 15/16 Peru 49/66 8/12 16/19 Peru 36/66 3/12 7/19 ]] 56/66 12/13 13/16 ]] 47/66 12/13 8/16 Poland 30/66 5/12 21/23 Poland 17/66 3/12 17/23 Z 35/66 7/12 9/19 Z 28/66 5/12 3/19 Z% 40/66 9/12 13/19 Z% 23/66 4/12 1/19 Senegal 43/66 5/9 5/16 Senegal 46/66 5/9 7/16 ] 15/66 5/13 15/23 ] 5/66 3/13 5/23 % 5 23/66 1/9 2/19 % 5 29/66 1/9 4/19 % y 17/66 6/13 17/23 % y 21/66 6/13 21/23 ] 19/66 10/12 18/23 ] 19/66 10/12 19/23 Sweden 5/66 4/12 5/23 Sweden 7/66 3/12 7/23 Thailand 53/66 11/13 11/16 Thailand 24/66 7/13 1/16 3% @ 7 27/66 4/12 5/19 3% @ 7 48/66 8/12 13/19 55/66 6/9 3/8 42/66 4/9 4/8 @ 63/66 12/12 15/16 @ 52/66 9/12 10/16 5 + 11/66 1/5 11/23 5 + 4/66 1/5 4/23 y 10/66 7/12 10/23 y 13/66 7/12 13/23 21/66 11/12 20/23 20/66 11/12 20/23 % 60/66 12/12 19/19 % 66/66 12/12 19/19 Vietnam 50/66 10/13 9/16 Vietnam 32/66 10/13 5/16
111 WJP Rule of Law Index
Groups by Regions
East Asia and Pacific
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Criminal Justice Australia 2/13 5/13 4/13 2/13 4/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 Cambodia 13/13 13/13 13/13 12/13 13/13 13/13 13/13 13/13 China 11/13 9/13 9/13 13/13 7/13 12/13 8/13 8/13 ^ y 5Z5 4/13 4/13 1/13 5/13 2/13 6/13 3/13 1/13 Indonesia 6/13 12/13 10/13 6/13 8/13 7/13 7/13 9/13 ] 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 2/13 2/13 4/13 7 9/13 7/13 6/13 11/13 10/13 10/13 9/13 11/13 New Zealand 1/13 1/13 5/13 1/13 1/13 1/13 1/13 2/13 ]] 8/13 10/13 12/13 9/13 12/13 9/13 12/13 12/13 ] 5/13 2/13 2/13 8/13 6/13 4/13 5/13 3/13 % y 7/13 6/13 7/13 4/13 5/13 5/13 6/13 6/13 Thailand 12/13 8/13 11/13 7/13 11/13 8/13 11/13 7/13 Vietnam 10/13 11/13 8/13 10/13 9/13 11/13 10/13 10/13
Eastern Europe and Central Asia
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Justice Albania 6/12 10/12 9/12 6/12 9/12 11/12 10/12 10/12 Bulgaria 7/12 9/12 10/12 7/12 6/12 8/12 8/12 12/12 Croatia 4/12 5/12 7/12 5/12 4/12 6/12 6/12 6/12 Z ]% 3/12 3/12 4/12 2/12 3/12 3/12 2/12 1/12 Estonia 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 2/12 y @ 11/12 8/12 5/12 9/12 7/12 4/12 3/12 7/12 y7 7 10/12 12/12 8/12 11/12 12/12 9/12 11/12 11/12 Poland 2/12 2/12 2/12 3/12 2/12 2/12 5/12 3/12 Z 5/12 4/12 3/12 4/12 5/12 7/12 7/12 5/12 Z% 9/12 7/12 12/12 10/12 10/12 10/12 9/12 4/12 3% @ 7 8/12 6/12 11/12 12/12 8/12 5/12 4/12 8/12 @ 12/12 11/12 6/12 8/12 11/12 12/12 12/12 9/12
Latin America and Caribbean
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Justice Argentina 9/12 8/12 9/12 5/12 9/12 10/12 4/12 9/12 Bolivia 11/12 12/12 3/12 11/12 6/12 11/12 10/12 10/12 2 3/12 2/12 5/12 3/12 5/12 3/12 2/12 5/12 Chile 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 Colombia 4/12 5/12 12/12 8/12 2/12 4/12 3/12 6/12 V Z ]% 8/12 9/12 10/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 7/12 4/12 El Salvador 5/12 4/12 2/12 6/12 10/12 2/12 6/12 8/12 Q% 10/12 6/12 6/12 9/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 7/12 Jamaica 6/12 3/12 8/12 4/12 12/12 7/12 5/12 2/12 Mexico 7/12 10/12 7/12 10/12 4/12 6/12 11/12 11/12 Peru 2/12 7/12 4/12 2/12 3/12 5/12 8/12 3/12 % 12/12 11/12 11/12 12/12 11/12 12/12 12/12 12/12
112 Data Tables
Middle East and North Africa
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Justice Iran 5/5 3/5 5/5 5/5 3/5 3/5 3/5 3/5 Jordan 2/5 2/5 2/5 3/5 2/5 2/5 2/5 2/5 , 3/5 4/5 3/5 1/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 4/5 Morocco 4/5 5/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 5/5 5 + 1/5 1/5 1/5 2/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
South Asia
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Justice Bangladesh 2/3 2/3 1/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 India 1/3 1/3 2/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 Pakistan 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3
Sub-Saharan Africa
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Criminal Justice Cameroon 8/9 9/9 2/9 7/9 7/9 6/9 8/9 8/9 + ] 9/9 4/9 4/9 9/9 5/9 7/9 4/9 6/9 Q 1/9 3/9 3/9 1/9 2/9 3/9 2/9 2/9 y 7 7/9 8/9 5/9 5/9 8/9 8/9 7/9 3/9 , 4/9 7/9 7/9 4/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 Nigeria 3/9 5/9 9/9 6/9 4/9 4/9 3/9 7/9 Senegal 5/9 2/9 1/9 3/9 6/9 2/9 5/9 5/9 % 5 2/9 1/9 8/9 2/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 6/9 6/9 6/9 8/9 3/9 5/9 6/9 4/9
Western Europe and North America
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Criminal Justice Austria 6/12 4/12 4/12 4/12 5/12 6/12 5/12 4/12 Belgium 8/12 8/12 8/12 6/12 9/12 10/12 6/12 9/12 Canada 5/12 5/12 3/12 9/12 4/12 7/12 9/12 6/12 W 9/12 7/12 9/12 10/12 10/12 8/12 8/12 12/12 Q 7 4/12 6/12 5/12 5/12 7/12 5/12 2/12 5/12 7 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 8/12 Netherlands 3/12 3/12 10/12 3/12 2/12 3/12 3/12 2/12 ] 7 1/12 2/12 1/12 2/12 6/12 2/12 1/12 1/12 ] 11/12 11/12 11/12 7/12 11/12 11/12 10/12 10/12 Sweden 2/12 1/12 2/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 4/12 3/12 y 7/12 9/12 7/12 8/12 3/12 4/12 7/12 7/12 10/12 10/12 6/12 11/12 8/12 9/12 11/12 11/12
113 WJP Rule of Law Index
Groups by Income
High Income
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Criminal Justice Australia 4/23 9/23 10/23 7/23 8/23 7/23 13/23 15/23 Austria 8/23 8/23 8/23 5/23 9/23 9/23 8/23 8/23 Belgium 12/23 15/23 14/23 11/23 15/23 17/23 9/23 18/23 Canada 7/23 11/23 7/23 14/23 6/23 13/23 16/23 10/23 Croatia 23/23 23/23 22/23 21/23 22/23 23/23 22/23 23/23 Z ]% 19/23 22/23 20/23 9/23 21/23 21/23 19/23 11/23 Estonia 10/23 10/23 16/23 8/23 13/23 10/23 6/23 14/23 W 15/23 14/23 15/23 15/23 16/23 14/23 14/23 22/23 Q 7 6/23 12/23 9/23 6/23 11/23 8/23 2/23 9/23 ^ y 5Z5 14/23 6/23 1/23 20/23 5/23 18/23 12/23 2/23 7 21/23 21/23 23/23 19/23 23/23 22/23 23/23 16/23 ] 11/23 5/23 4/23 16/23 7/23 4/23 7/23 12/23 Netherlands 5/23 7/23 17/23 3/23 3/23 5/23 3/23 6/23 New Zealand 2/23 1/23 11/23 4/23 2/23 3/23 4/23 3/23 ] 7 1/23 3/23 3/23 2/23 10/23 2/23 1/23 1/23 Poland 13/23 20/23 18/23 10/23 20/23 20/23 21/23 17/23 ] 18/23 4/23 2/23 22/23 17/23 11/23 15/23 5/23 % y 22/23 19/23 19/23 17/23 14/23 16/23 17/23 21/23 ] 17/23 18/23 21/23 12/23 19/23 19/23 18/23 19/23 Sweden 3/23 2/23 5/23 1/23 1/23 1/23 5/23 7/23 5 + 20/23 13/23 6/23 23/23 18/23 12/23 11/23 4/23 y 9/23 16/23 13/23 13/23 4/23 6/23 10/23 13/23 16/23 17/23 12/23 18/23 12/23 15/23 20/23 20/23
Upper Middle Income
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Criminal Justice Albania 13/19 19/19 4/19 6/19 15/19 15/19 14/19 16/19 Argentina 12/19 13/19 15/19 9/19 13/19 17/19 8/19 15/19 2 4/19 2/19 12/19 4/19 6/19 3/19 3/19 11/19 Bulgaria 14/19 16/19 5/19 11/19 8/19 13/19 11/19 18/19 Chile 1/19 1/19 9/19 1/19 1/19 1/19 1/19 2/19 Colombia 5/19 7/19 19/19 12/19 2/19 4/19 7/19 14/19 V Z ]% 11/19 15/19 16/19 10/19 9/19 16/19 12/19 10/19 Iran 17/19 8/19 7/19 19/19 10/19 6/19 6/19 9/19 Jamaica 7/19 3/19 14/19 8/19 19/19 12/19 10/19 6/19 y @ 18/19 11/19 3/19 14/19 12/19 7/19 4/19 8/19 , 8/19 14/19 6/19 5/19 18/19 19/19 17/19 12/19 7 6/19 4/19 1/19 18/19 11/19 11/19 15/19 5/19 Mexico 9/19 17/19 13/19 13/19 5/19 8/19 18/19 17/19 Peru 2/19 12/19 11/19 3/19 3/19 5/19 16/19 7/19 Z 10/19 6/19 2/19 2/19 7/19 10/19 9/19 3/19 Z% 16/19 10/19 10/19 15/19 16/19 14/19 13/19 1/19 % 5 3/19 5/19 17/19 7/19 4/19 2/19 2/19 4/19 3% @ 7 15/19 9/19 8/19 17/19 14/19 9/19 5/19 13/19 % 19/19 18/19 18/19 16/19 17/19 18/19 19/19 19/19
114 Data Tables
Lower Middle Income
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Criminal Justice Bolivia 13/16 14/16 12/16 9/16 5/16 12/16 12/16 16/16 Cameroon 15/16 15/16 10/16 13/16 15/16 14/16 14/16 13/16 China 7/16 3/16 2/16 16/16 2/16 8/16 6/16 2/16 El Salvador 4/16 4/16 11/16 3/16 10/16 2/16 3/16 12/16 Q% 12/16 8/16 13/16 7/16 6/16 9/16 10/16 9/16 India 2/16 10/16 15/16 4/16 1/16 13/16 8/16 6/16 Indonesia 1/16 9/16 7/16 1/16 3/16 3/16 4/16 3/16 Jordan 6/16 1/16 3/16 12/16 4/16 1/16 1/16 4/16 Morocco 8/16 13/16 5/16 14/16 11/16 10/16 7/16 14/16 Nigeria 10/16 11/16 14/16 11/16 13/16 11/16 2/16 11/16 Pakistan 14/16 16/16 16/16 15/16 16/16 15/16 16/16 15/16 ]] 3/16 5/16 9/16 6/16 9/16 5/16 13/16 8/16 Senegal 11/16 7/16 6/16 5/16 14/16 6/16 5/16 7/16 Thailand 9/16 2/16 8/16 2/16 8/16 4/16 11/16 1/16 @ 16/16 12/16 4/16 8/16 12/16 16/16 15/16 10/16 Vietnam 5/16 6/16 1/16 10/16 7/16 7/16 9/16 5/16
Low Income
W W W W W W W W % 7 , Q 0 5 Order and W% )] Z % 7 Access to + 0 Powers %] % 7 Z Q 0 + Civil Justice Criminal Justice Bangladesh 3/8 4/8 3/8 3/8 3/8 4/8 6/8 2/8 Cambodia 8/8 8/8 2/8 7/8 6/8 7/8 7/8 6/8 + ] 7/8 2/8 5/8 8/8 5/8 5/8 2/8 5/8 Q 1/8 1/8 4/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 y 7 6/8 7/8 6/8 5/8 7/8 6/8 5/8 3/8 y7 7 5/8 5/8 1/8 4/8 4/8 2/8 4/8 7/8 , 2/8 6/8 8/8 2/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 4/8 3/8 7/8 6/8 2/8 3/8 3/8 4/8
115 Data Notes
Data Notes
The WJP Rule of Law Index provides new indicators on nine factors and 52 sub-factors. These factors and sub-factors correspond to goals or outcomes that rule of law societies seek to achieve and that policy makers might want to influence. The WJP Rule of Law Index is a first attempt to systematically and comprehensively quantify these outcomes by linking the conceptual definitions to concrete questions. These questions are then administered to a representative sample of the general public, and to local experts, and then are analyzed and cross-checked pursuant to a rigorous triangulation methodology. The outcome of this exercise is one of the world’s most comprehensive data sets of the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice.
The 2011 Rule of Law Index builds on more than 400 variables drawn from the assessments of more than 66,000 people and 2,000 local experts in 66 countries.
Outcomes vs. inputs The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 measures outcomes rather than inputs. More specifically, our aim is to provide a picture of where countries stand with regard to a number of widely accepted outcomes that rule of law societies seek to achieve, as opposed to the institutional means, such as the legal and regulatory frameworks, to attain them. Some examples of outcomes measured by the Index include respect for fundamental rights, absence of corruption, and access to justice. Examples of inputs include a country’s number of courts, number of police officers, and judicial budget.
Measuring outcomes improves accuracy while reducing the risk of misdiagnosing the causes of problems and bottlenecks. For instance, police resources are just one of the many inputs of effective policing (an outcome), and it may or may not be the
117 WJP Rule of Law Index
driving reason behind crime rates. Since the Index perceptions of ordinary people about their dealings does not contain all the elements to diagnose the with the government, the police, and the courts; root causes of the country’s rule of law weaknesses, the openness and accountability of the State; the we focus on outcomes which, in the end, are the extent of corruption; and the magnitude of common goals policy makers want to address. Relevant inputs crimes to which the general public is exposed. The will continue to be captured by the methodology, latest questionnaire includes 91 perception-based as they are essential for policy analysis, and will be questions and 58 experience-based questions. In incorporated in the Index’s spin-off products which addition, socio-demographic information was also will complement the Index framework and provide collected. In all countries, the questionnaire was a solid basis for policy analysis and discussion. translated into local languages and adapted to common expressions. The poll was carried out on a probability sample of 1,000 respondents drawn Law in practice vs. from the three largest cities in each country, and law on the books was conducted by leading local polling companies on behalf of the World Justice Project. Depending In order to evaluate the rule of law in a given on the particular situation of each country, three country, it is necessary to look not only at the laws different polling methodologies were used: CATI, as written (de jure), but also at how they are actually Online, or F2F. The cities covered, the polling implemented in practice and experienced by those company, and the polling methodology employed who are subject to them (de facto). Unlike other in all 66 countries are presented in Table 4. For indices, the WJP Rule of Law Index methodology the first round of countries, data were gathered in focuses entirely on adherence to the rule of law in September 2009. For the second round, they were practice. collected in April 2011.
The Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaire (QRQ) A new data set is designed to complement polling data with expert opinion on a variety of dimensions relevant to the The WJP’s Rule of Law Index is based on the rule of law. The expert questionnaires were tailored premise that it is necessary to use different but to four areas of expertise: civil and commercial complementary data sources to best approximate law, criminal justice (due process); labor law, and the concept of the rule of law. Currently, there is public health. The questionnaires cover different no comparable data that fully covers all dimensions aspects of the majority of factors, but are tailored of the rule of law. The WJP Rule of Law Index to suit the knowledge and expertise of each type addresses this gap by constructing a new set of of respondent. The questionnaires include close- indicators drawn from two novel data sources: ended perception questions and several hypothetical scenarios with highly detailed factual assumptions » A general population poll (GPP) conducted by leading local polling aimed at ensuring comparability across countries. companies using a probability sample of Qualified respondents are selected based solely on 1,000 respondents in the three largest cities of each country. their professional expertise by using two methods. The first method involves a two-stage procedure. » Qualified respondents’ questionnaires (QRQ) completed by in-country experts In the first stage, a large number of organizations in civil and commercial law, criminal are selected from a set of directories of law firms, justice, labor law, and public health. universities/colleges, research organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the The general population poll (GPP) is a key second stage, a random sample of experts is drawn component of the Index as it provides information from within the selected organizations. Once a on how the rule of law is experienced by the sufficient number of potential respondents are people, including marginalized segments of the identified, questionnaires are sent to the selected society. The GPP questionnaire was designed to individuals. The second method builds on the WJP provide information on the experiences and the network of practitioners and academics- people who
118 Data Notes
Table 4: City coverage and polling methodology in the 66 indexed countries
Data % 7 Cities Covered ] 7 7 ] Collection Year Albania Tirana, Durres, Elbasan % Q %] WW 1096 2009 Argentina 2% 5 5 5 Z ] 0 @ Z CATI 1000 2009 Australia 7 75 % 5 2 ) % 5 7 , )], ]+ 1030 2009 Austria 5 Q 5 , Market Institut )], ]+ 1000 2009 Bangladesh V @ 5 5 y % ) R¢% Z , WW 1000 2011 Belgium 2 % 5 5 ] 5 Q % 0 7 ] 5 ,, )], ]+ 1000 2011 Bolivia , 5 % 5 + % 7 + % WW 1003 2009 2 > % 5 Z 5 2 ^ W Z 6 ^ 53 WW_ 850 2011 Bulgaria 5 0 05 5 ] Z WW 1024 2009 Cambodia 5 2 5 y ] Z , WW 1006 2011 Cameroon Douala, Yaoundé, Bamenda 2,+ WW 1000 2011 Canada Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver , @ )], ]+ 1047 2009 Chile 5 ] 3 5 ] W Z CATI 850 2011 China 2 = 5 5 Q% % ] WW 1006 2011 Colombia Bogota, Medellin, Cali Centro Nacional de Consultoria (CNC) CATI 1009 2009 Croatia 5 ] 5 Z = @ % R @ 5 % )] CATI 1006 2009 Z ]% Prague, Brno, Ostrava % 0 7 ] 5 ,, )], ]+ 1001 2011 V Z ]% Q V 5 5 5 Z Q %] WW 1000 2009 El Salvador 0 5 7 ] 5 5 2 7 5 WW 1020 2009 Estonia Tallinn, Tartu, Narva % 0 7 ] 5 ,, )], ]+ 1000 2011 + ] Addis Ababa, Dire Dawa, Mek'ele Z % , WW 1019 2011 W 5 5 ,7 , @ ] )], ]+ 1000 2009 Q 7 2 5 ^ % 5 % % 0 7 ] 5 ,, )], ]+ 1002 2011 Q 5 5 y% 5 3 3 Q %] ^ 7 0 _ WW 1006 2009 Q% Q% 75 6 5 ]% 0 3] V5355 5 WW 1000 2011 ^ y 5Z5 ^ y IBI Partners WW 1006 2011 India % 5 V 5 y @ ^ % 3 ] 5 ^ Z2_ WW 1004 2009 Indonesia @ 5 % 7 5 2 % 7 0 WW 1067 2009 Iran 3 5 5 W 2 @ @ Z WW 1097 2011 7 Z 5 5 ] ] % 0 7 ] 5 ,, )], ]+ 1000 2011 Jamaica y 5 5 ] 3 @ Q %]5 WW 1000 2011 ] 3 @7 5 @ 5 ) @ IBI Partners CATI 1000 2009 Jordan 5 5 5 _ 5 ] WW 1011 2009 y @ 5 75 5 5 7 @ Z) Z ^ Z ,3V WW 1000 2011 y 7 Nairobi, Mombasa, Nakuru 7 0 y 7 WW 1012 2009 y7 7 Bishkek, Osh, Djalalabd Z) Z ^ Z ,3V WW 1000 2011 , 2 % 5 3 ] 5 W 2 @ @ Z WW 1001 2011 , Monrovia ] WW 1000 2009 7 y% ,% ]% 5 ] 5 2 % IBI Partners WW 1006 2011 Mexico 6 75 Q% = 5 7 2 0 5 5 CATI 1057 2009 Morocco 5 Z 5 W ] WW 1000 2009 Netherlands 5 5 Z 5 Q 0 Z 6 )], ]+ 1004 2009 New Zealand Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington IBI Partners CATI 1006 2011 Nigeria , 5 y 5 3 Q %] ^ 7 0 _ WW 1001 2009 ] 7 Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim % 0 7 ] 5 ,, )], ]+ 1005 2011 Pakistan y 5 , 5 W 22 @ Z WW 1000 2009 Peru , 5 5 _% ] 5 3 %= ) 5 )) )] 7 5 WW 1009 2009 ]] Manila, Davao, Cebu IBI Partners WW 1000 2009 Poland 5 5 , 7 0 WW 1000 2009 Z Bucharest, Iasi, Cluj 7 0 Z, WW 1000 2011 Z% Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk Z) Z ^ Z ,3V WW 1000 2011 Senegal Dakar, Thies, Diourbel 3] Z WW 1024 2011 ] ] IBI Partners CATI 1000 2009 % 5 % 5 ] 3 5 V% ¢% Z 0 WW 1000 2009 % y Seoul, Busan, Incheon ] Z % 5 )], ]+ 1000 2009 ] Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia , @ ] )], ]+ 1018 2009 Sweden @ 5 Q 5 ])Z 353 )], ]+ 1003 2009 Thailand 2 @ @5 ] % 5 @ y IBI Partners Thailand WW 1000 2009 3% @ 7 % 5 5 @ 5 Z % 7 , WW 1000 2009 y ] 5 @ 5 %@ 7 0 , WW 1000 2011 @ y7 05 y @ 05 V ] ] 0 @ y 0 % 75 , WW 1010 2011 5 + Dubai, Sharjah, Abu-Dhabi W 2 @ @ Z WW 1011 2011 y , 5 2 5 Q % 0 7 ] 5 ,, )], ]+ 1001 2011 ] @5 , 5 5 % 0 7 ] 5 ,, )], ]+ 1044 2011 % Caracas, Maracaibo, Barquisimeto ] WW 1000 2011 Vietnam ^ 75 ^ ] 5 ^ Z , WW 1000 2011
119 WJP Rule of Law Index
have provided significant input to the development a composite measure that conveys more precisely of the Index. Data collection was conducted from the extent of bribery and corruption in regulatory March 2011 through May 2011. implementation. Overall, the Index combines more than 400 detailed questions to measure the concepts The Index is thus based on data from experts and represented in the different sub-factors of the WJP’s data from the general public. The intent in using Rule of Law Index. these two data sources is twofold - the first is to complement the information provided by the experts’ assessments (specialized knowledge of certain Building indicators processes, actors, and circumstances) with that of All variables included in the Rule of Law Index the general public (different rule of law problems as were normalized using the Min-Max method, so experienced by the people). The underlying concept that all variables are expressed in a scale from 0 is that experts and lay people are knowledgeable (low rule of law) to 1 (high rule of law). Individual about different rule of law situations. For instance, variables covering the same concept were averaged while experts are familiar with the duration of cases and then aggregated into sub-factors and factors in courts, they might not comprehend factors such using simple averages. These scores are the basis as crime in different neighborhoods, which is a of the final rankings. In all cases, the base level of problem experienced on a daily basis by the general aggregation for each sub-factor is calculated with a public. The second goal is to validate our findings weight of 50% for the QRQ variables, and 50% for by providing different perspectives on the same the GPP variables1. issue (see Data validation and cross-checks section below). In this way, the Index anchors expert opinion on rigorous polling of the general public to ensure Data validation and cross-checks that the findings reflect the conditions experienced by the population, including marginalized sectors of Another distinguishing feature of the WJP’s Rule society. of Law Index is that it approaches the measurement of rule of law from various angles so as to improve the validity and reliability of the resultant scores - a Combining several questions method known as triangulation. The Rule of Law to measure a complex concept Index triangulates information across data sources and also across types of questions. This approach not No single question can cover all of the dimensions of only enables accounting for different perspectives the concepts described by the different factors and on the rule of law, but it also helps to reduce sub-factors, therefore, the WJP’s Rule of Law Index possible bias that might be introduced by any one measures each of the concepts with several variables. particular data collection method. In addition, the By combining a series of questions, with each Index employs both a qualitative and quantitative reflecting different aspects of a particular concept, it methodology for cross-checking its findings in is possible to create composite indicators that better order to identify discrepancies between the Index capture the reality of a complex concept, such as the and other data sources. rule of law. For instance, sub-factor 6.2 measures whether government regulations are applied and enforced without the exercise of bribery or improper Limitations influence. Given the large number of regulations emerging from different governmental bodies in With the aforementioned methodological strengths each country, it is clear that no single question can come a number of limitations. First, the data will adequately encompass this concept. The Index thus 1 Composite indicators are subject to several sources of uncertainty, including sampling error, missing data, weighting, normalization, or aggregation rules, to mention just a incorporates a series of 33 questions falling under few. To assess the impact of such uncertainties on our estimates, we asked the Joint different regulatory areas, such as labor, environment, Research Centre of the European Commission to perform a sensitivity analysis based a combination of Monte Carlo experiments, bootstrapping, and multi-modeling public health, education, public registries, and approaches [Saisana, M and Saltelli, A. (2010)]. Their analysis has demonstrated the robustness of our findings, i.e., that 90 percent of the countries show a shift of less procurement. With all this information, we create than ±1 position.
120 Data Notes shed light on rule of law dimensions that appear comparatively strong or weak, but will not be specific enough to establish causation. Thus, it will be necessary to use the Index in combination with other analytical tools to provide a full picture of causes and possible solutions.
Second, the methodology has been applied only in three major urban areas in each of the indexed countries. As the project evolves, the WJP intends to extend the application of the methodology to other urban areas, and eventually to rural areas as well.
Other methodological considerations A detailed presentation of the methodology, including a description of the more than 400 variables used to construct the Index scores, are available in Botero, J and Ponce, A. (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”. WJP Working Paper No. 1, available on- line at www.worldjusticeproject.org
121 Part III: Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index
MICHAELA SAISANA and ANDREA SALTELLI European Commission Joint Research Centre (Ispra, Italy)
Summary 3 Z 7 % ] % % R 0 % % Z% , 6 7 7 7 % 7 ] % 7 @ 7 % 5 % ^ ^ ] Q _
The assessment of conceptual and statistical coherence of the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index and the estimation of the impact of modeling assumptions on a country’s performance are useful steps: they add to the transparency and reliability of the Index and build confidence in the narratives supported by the measure. Modeling the cultural and subjective concepts underlying the rule of law at a national scale around the globe raises practical challenges related to the combination of these concepts into a single set of numbers.
The Econometrics and Applied Statistics Unit at the European Commission Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy has undertaken for a second consecutive year, and upon request of the WJP, a thorough statistical assessment of the Index.1 The WJP Rule of Law Index was assessed along two main avenues: the conceptual and statistical coherence of its structure, and the impact of key modeling assumptions on its scores and ranks.
125 WJP Rule of Law Index
Conceptual and statistical confirmed by statistical approaches and to identify eventual pitfalls. The analysis confirms the WJP coherence in the WJP Rule of Law Index structure, as within each of the Rule of Law framework eight dimensions the first latent factor captures between 55% up to 93% of the variance (best result Country data delivered to the JRC represented for Absence of Corruption – Factor 2). A more detailed average scores of public or expert opinion on analysis of the correlation structure confirms the 479 variables. These variables are not affected expectation that the sub-factors are more correlated by outliers or skewed distributions2, except for to their own dimension than to any other dimension 16 variables spread across six factors in the WJP and all correlations are strong and positive. Hence, Rule of Law Index.3 Given the high number of no-reallocation of sub-factors is needed. Finally, the variables combined in building a factor, the skewed eight factors share a single latent factor that captures distributions of those variables do not bias the 82% of the total variance. This latter result could results. Some reservations on Civil conflict is be used as a statistical justification for aggregating effectively limited (sub-factor 3.2) are discussed further the eight dimensions into a single index by later. The 2011 dataset is characterized by excellent using a weighted arithmetic average. This is not data coverage (92% in a matrix of 479 variables × currently done, as the WJP team aims to shed more 66 countries). Data coverage per dimension and light on the dimensions of the rule of law as opposed country is also very good or excellent. A further to an overall index. data quality issue relates to the treatment of missing values. The WJP, for reasons of transparency and Next, tests focused on identifying whether the replicability, calculated sub-factor scores using eight dimensions of the WJP Rule of Law Index only available information for each country. This are statistically well-balanced in the underlying choice, which is common in relevant contexts, might sub-factors. In the present context given that all discourage countries from reporting low data values. dimensions are built as simple arithmetic averages We tested the implications of ‘no imputation’ versus (i.e. equal weights for the relative sub-factors), our the hot-deck imputation method and discuss this analysis answers the question: ‘are the sub-factors in the second part of the assessment together with really equally important?’ We used an ‘importance
other modeling assumptions. measure’ (henceforth Si), known as correlation ratio or first order sensitivity measure (Saltelli et
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to al., 2008). The Si describes ‘the expected reduction assess to what extent the conceptual framework is in the variance of factor scores that would be
Table 1. Importance measures (variance-based) for the eight factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index % R W W W W W W W W 3 ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ 3 ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ 3 ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ 3 ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ 3 ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ 3 ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ 3 ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ ^ _ 3 ^ _ ^ _ 3 ^ _ Source: European Commission Joint Research Centre; WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 2 Notes: (1) Numbers represent the kernel estimates of the Pearson correlation ratio ( ). (2) Bootstrap confidence intervals are given in parenthesis. (3) Sub-factors that have much lower contribution to the variance of the relevant Factor scores than the equal weighting expectation are marked with an asterisk. (4) F.1: Limited Government Powers, F.2: Absence of Corruption, F.3: Order and Security, F.4: Fundamental Rights, F.5: Open Government, F.6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement, F.7: Access to Civil Justice, F.8: Effective Criminal Justice
126 Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index obtained if a given sub-factor could be fixed’. As check control of potential outliers and eventual discussed in Paruolo et al., 2011, we can take this errors and typos were corrected during this phase. as a measure of importance; thus if sub-factors are supposed to be equally important their Si values The robustness assessment of the WJP Rule of should not differ too much. Results are reassuring: Law Index was based on a combination of a Monte all sub-factors are important in classifying countries Carlo experiment and a multi-modeling approach. within each factor, though some sub-factors are This type of assessment aims to respond to eventual slightly more important than others (see Table 1). criticism that the country scores associated with However, for the Access to Civil Justice, one could aggregate measures are generally not calculated question the contribution of sub-factors 7.2, 7.3 under conditions of certainty, even if they are and 7.7 compared to the remaining sub-factors on frequently presented as such (Saisana et al., 2005, the basis of their lower effective weight. The issue is 2011). The Monte Carlo simulation related to somewhat more serious for Order and Security where the weights and comprised 1,000 runs, each sub-factor 3.2 (civil conflict is effectively limited) is corresponding to a different set of weights of the half as important as the other two. The reason is sub-factors underlying each dimension, randomly that 52 out of 66 countries do have civil conflict sampled from uniform continuous distributions effectively limited and hence they all receive a centered in the reference values. The choice of score of 1.0 in this sub-factor. Consequently, sub- the range for the weights’ variation was driven by factor 3.2 has no discriminating power over those two opposite needs: on the one hand, the need to countries. Yet, sub-factor 3.2 becomes important ensure a wide enough interval to have meaningful and placed on equal footing with the other two sub- robustness checks; on the other hand, the need factors when it comes to the remaining 14 countries to respect the rationale of the WJP that the sub- where civil conflicts exist. In order for sub-factor factors are equally important when calculating a 3.2 to become as important as the other two for the dimension. Given these considerations, limit values entire set of countries, the original weights should of uncertainty intervals have been defined as shown be changed from 1,1,1, to 1, 2.5, 1 (in that case all Si in Table 2. values will be between 0.60 and 0.70). The multi-modeling approach involved combinations of the remaining two key assumptions Impact of modeling on the ‘no imputation’ of missing data and the assumptions on the WJP aggregation formula within a factor. The WJP calculated sub-factor scores using only available Rule of Law Index results information for each country4. This choice (often termed as ‘no imputation’) was confronted with the Every dimension in the WJP Rule of Law Index is application of the hot-deck imputation method5. the outcome of choices: the framework (driven by Regarding the WJP assumption on the aggregation theoretical models and expert opinion), the variables function (arithmetic average), and despite the fact included, the estimation or not of missing values, the that it received statistical support (see principal normalization of the variables, the weights assigned component analysis results in the previous section), to the variables and sub-factors, and the aggregation decision-theory practitioners have challenged this method, among other elements. Some of these type of aggregation because of inherent theoretical choices are based on expert opinion, or common inconsistencies lined to their fully compensatory practice, driven by statistical analysis or the need for nature, in which a comparative advantage of ease of communication. The aim of the robustness a few variables can compensate a comparative analysis is to assess to what extent these choices disadvantage of many variables. Hence, we might affect country classification. We have dealt considered the geometric average instead, which is with these uncertainties simultaneously in order to a partially compensatory approach.6 Consequently, assess their joint influence and fully acknowledge we tested four models based on the combination their implications. Data are considered to be error- of no imputation versus hot-deck and arithmetic free since the WJP team already undertook a double- versus geometric average. Combined with the 1,000
127 WJP Rule of Law Index
Table 2. Uncertainties simulated in the WJP Rule of Law Index 7 ]% 0 % Reference method Alternative method ]% hot-deck 7 WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 7 Z 0 % ^^ Q 0 % _ W , Q 0 ^ _ W 5 %] ^_ W ) % 7 ^_ W W% Z ^ _ W )] Q 0 ^ _ W + 0 Z % 7 + ^ _ W 5 0 % ^ _ W + 0 % ^ _ 7 % Z Alternative method arithmetic average geometric average
Source: European Commission Joint Research Centre; WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 Notes: Number of sub-factors underlying each factor are given in parenthesis.
simulations per model to account for the uncertainty (black line), the dot being the simulated median in the weights across the sub-factors, we carried out rank. Error bars represent, for each country, the 90% altogether 4,000 simulations. interval across all simulations. Ranks in all eight factors are very robust to the modeling assumptions: The main results of the robustness analysis are 90 percent of the countries shift with respect to the provided in Figure 1, which shows median ranks simulated median less than 1 position in Limited and 90% intervals computed across the 4,000 Government Powers (F.1), Absence of Corruption Monte Carlo simulations for Absence of Corruption (F.2), Fundamental Rights (F.4) and Effective (F.2, one of the most robust dimensions) and for Regulatory Enforcement (F.6); less than 2 positions Open Government (F.5, one of the least robust in Access to Civil Justice (F.7) and Effective Criminal dimensions). Countries are ordered from best to Justice (F.8); less than 3 positions in Order and worst according to their reference rank in the WJP Security (F.3) and Open Government (F.5). The fact
Figure 1: Robustness analysis (WJP factor ranks vs. median rank, 90% intervals)
1 Z @ 1 Z @ W Z @ W Z @ 11 11
21 ] 21
31 31
41 41 Vietnam 51 51 Iran Q
)] Q 0 ^W _ Morocco 61 5 %] ^W _ 61
Countries Countries
Source: European Commission Joint Research Centre; WJP Rule of Law Index 2011
Notes: Countries with wide intervals –more than 10 positions– across 4,000 simulations related to estimation of missing data, weighting and aggregation formula are flagged.
128 Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index that Absence of Corruption (F.2) is one of the most References robust dimensions in the WJP Rule of Law Index with respect to modeling assumptions and also very Groeneveld, R. A., Meeden, G. 1984. Measuring coherent (as discussed in the previous section) is all skewness and kurtosis. The Statistician 33: 391–99. the more noteworthy given its potential inclusion Little, R. J. A., Rubin, D. B. 2002. Statistical in the Corruption Perception Index of Transparency Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd edition. Hoboken, International, to describe perception of corruption NJ: John Wiley & Sons. in the public sector and among politicians. Simulated 90% intervals across 4,000 Monte Carlo Munda, G. 2008. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation runs are narrow enough for most countries (less for a Sustainable Economy. Berlin Heidelberg: than 4 positions in 75% of the cases) to allow for Springer-Verlag. meaningful inferences to be drawn. Exceptionally, few countries have relatively wide intervals (roughly OECD/EC JRC, 2008. Handbook on Constructing 10-16 positions): China and Liberia on F.1, Ghana Composite Indicators: Methodology and User on F.2, Bangladesh on F.3, Singapore on F.4, Iran, Guide. Paris: OECD. Morocco, Singapore and Vietnam on F.5, Jamaica on F.6, and no country on F.7 or F.8. These Paruolo, P., Saltelli, A., Saisana, M., Ratings and relatively wide intervals are due to compensation of rankings: Voodoo or Science? Journal of the Royal low performance on some sub-factors with a very Statistical Society A (submitted, 2011). good performance on other sub-factors in a given dimension (see country profiles in the main part Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S. 2005. of the report). Although these few cases are not a Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Techniques as worrisome concern in the context of rule of law, they Tools for the Analysis and Validation of Composite have been flagged herein as part of the sensitivity Indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A analysis in order to give more transparency in the 168 (2):307–323. entire process and to help appreciate the WJP Rule of Law Index results with respect to the assumptions Saisana, M., D’Hombres, B., Saltelli, A. 2011. made during the development phase. Rickety Numbers: Volatility of University Rankings and Policy Implications. Research Policy 40: 165–77. Overall, the JRC analysis suggests that the Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, conceptualized multi-level structure of the WJP F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., Tarantola, Rule of Law Index is statistically coherent and S. 2008. Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. none of the eight dimensions is dominated by Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. any of its underlying sub-factors. Country ranks across the eight dimensions are also fairly robust to methodological changes related to the estimation of missing data, weighting or aggregation rule (less 1 The JRC analysis was based on the recommendations of the OECD (2008) Handbook than 1 position shift in 90% of the cases). on Composite Indicators, and on more recent research from the JRC. The JRC auditing studies of composite indicators are available at http://composite-indicators.jrc.ec.europa. eu/
2 Groeneveld and Meeden (1984) set the criteria for absolute skewness above 1 and kurtosis above 3.5. The skewness criterion was relaxed to ‘above 2’ to account for the small sample (66 countries).
3 In the WJP Rule of Law Index, ‘factors’ are equivalent to dimensions and ‘sub-factors’ to sub-dimensions.
4 Note that here ‘no imputation’ is equivalent to replacing missing values with the average of the available data within each sub-factor.
5 The ‘hot-deck method’ (also termed ‘nearest neighbour method’) involves substituting missing values for a given country with available data from ‘similar’ countries, similarity being measured by a certain distance (Little and Rubin, 2002). For the WJP factors, after cross-validation, we selected Manhattan distance and three nearest neighbours.
6 In the geometric average, sub-factors are multiplied as opposed to summed in the arithmetic average. Sub-factor weights appear as exponents in the multiplication.
129 Part IV: Contributing Experts Contributing Experts
Contributing Experts
The Rule of Law Index 2011 was made possible by generous pro-bono contribution of academics and practitioners who contributed their time and expertise. The names of those experts wishing to be acknowledged individually are listed in the following pages.
This report was also made possible by the work of the polling companies who conducted fieldwork, and the thousands of individuals who have responded to the general population poll (GPP) around the world.
133 WJP Rule of Law Index
Guillermo Jorge Angus McKenzie Ghulam Mustafa Dulal Albania Guillermo Jorge & Asociados PostSuper Pty Ltd Gonoshasthaya Kendra Jona Bica Santiago Legarre Simon Rice Debra Efroymson Kalo & Associates Universidad Católica Argentina Australian National HealthBridge University, College of Law Dorant Ekmekçiu Andres Mariano Ruiz S. M. Shajedul Haque Hoxha, Memi & Hoxha Cheryl Saunders Eminence Gabriel Martoglio Melbourne Law School, Sokol Elmazaj Martoglio & Asociados University of Melbourne Bilqis Amin Hoque Boga & Associates Environment and Population Maria Eugenia Montero Greg Taylor Research Centre (EPRC) Roshi Enver Hewlett-Packard Monash University Mohammed Mutahar Hossain Emel Haxhillari Rosa Maria Oller López Anonymous Contributors Hossain & Khan Associates Kalo & Associates Estudio Jurídico Oller López & Asoc Barristaer Kamruzzaman Eris Hoxha Daffodil International University Hoxha, Memi & Hoxha Diego Silva Ortiz Austria Department of Law Silva Ortiz, Alfonso, Pavic Ilir Johollari & Louge Abogados Syed Kamruzzaman Hoxha, Memi & Hoxha Arpad Gered Dr. Kamal Hossain & Associates BMA Brandstätter Anonymous Contributors Oljion Kaso Rechtsanwälte GmbH Ali Asif Khan Rokas Hossain & Khan Associates Gesundheit Österreich Andi Memi Australia Saira Rahman Khan Hoxha, Memi & Hoxha Thomas Hofmann BRAC University PALLAS Rechtsanwaelte Blerta Nesho Steven Bennett Partnerschaft Shusmita Khan Blake Dawson Eminence Pellumb Pipero Greiter Ivo Ministry of Health Sean Cooney Greiter Pegger Koffler & Partners Al Amin Rahman Melbourne Law School FM Associates Artila Rama Robert Kert Boga & Associates Nicholas Cowdery AM QC University of Vienna Mir Shamsur Rahman Sydney Institute of Criminology The University of Asia Pacific Klodian Rjepaj Katharina Koerber-Risak Breen Creighton Karasek Wietrzyk K.A.R. Sayeed Genci Terpo RMIT University Attorneys-at-Law United Hospital Albanian Human Rights Group Lynda Crowley-Cyr Christoph Konrath Anonymous Contributors Gerhard Velaj James Cook University Boga & Associates School of Law Isabelle Pellech Mag. Isabelle Pellech, Anonymous Contributors Michael Dodson LL.M. Rechtsanwältin Belgium Australian National University, National Centre Martin Reinisch for Indigenous Studies Brauneis Klauser Prandl J. Acolty Argentina Rechtsanwalte GmbH Philippe & Partners Patrick Emerton Monash University Martin Risak Eva Brems Valeria Amelong University of Vienna Ghent University Simon Evans Fernando Basch David Schnaiter A. Claes UBA, UP Thomas Faunce De Broeck Van Laere & Partners Australian National University Jernej Sekolec Paola Bergallo London Court of Daniel Cuypers Universidad de San Andrés James FitzSimons International Arbitration University of Antwerp Marcelo Bombau Andrew Frazer Doris Wydra Pierre d’Argent University of Wollongong Salzburg Centre of University of Louvain Federico A. Borzi Cirilli European Union Studies Defensas Penales Jeffrey Fuller Jan De Greef Flinders University Anonymous Contributors Hernán Jorge Danzi Marie-Sophie Devresse Estudio Jurídico Penal Dr. T. Hartnell Université Catholique de Louvain Hernán Jorge Danzi Atanaskovic Hartnell Bangladesh Olivier De Witte Gladys Karina De Bella Jack Keating Université Libre de Bruxelles, Hospital de Niños University of Melbourne Hôpital Erasme Ricardo Gutierrez ASM Alamgir WHO Adam McBeth Patrick Goffaux Roberto Durrieu Faculty of Law, Monash Université Libre de Bruxelles, Estudio Durrieu Abogados SC Abdul Awal University Faculté de Droit Omar Eidelstein Kazi Faizul Bari Fiona McDonald Kris Wauters LKEC K.A. BARI & CO. School of Law, Queensland Université Catholique de Louvain University of Technology Gonzalo Hernandez Mirza Farzana Iqbal Chowdhury Anonymous Contributors M. & M. Bomchil Daffodil International University
134 Contributing Experts
Fabio Di Jorge Amadeu Ribeiro Neli Nedkova Bolivia Peixoto e Cury Advogados Mattos Filho Advogados Wolf Theiss Adrian Barrenechea B. José Ricardo dos Paulo Sergio João Veselka Petrova Criales, Urcullo & Antezana, Santos Luz Júnior Pontificia Universidade Tsvetkova Bebov & Partners Abogados, Soc. Civ. Duarte Garcia, Caselli Catolica de São Paulo/ Guimarães e Terra Advogados Fundação Getúlio Vargas Lachezar Raichev Cesar Burgoa Rodríguez Penkov, Markov & Partners Bufete Burgoa Virgílio Afonso da Silva Elival da Silva Ramos University of São Paulo São Paulo University Law School Petko Salchev William Herrera Añez Department of Social Medicine Estudio Jurídico Alexandre Esper Augusto Simoes Cunha and Health Care Management Microsoft Cunha Ferreira Advogados - Medical University of Sofia Alex Linares Sanjinés & Asociados Heloisa Estellita Fernando Smith Fabris Atanas Slavov Soc. Civil Abogados Fundação Getúlio Freitas Macedo & Bulgarian Center for Vargas Law School Dalcin Law Firm Not-for-Profit Law Ivan Lima Magne Lima Asociados Consultores S.A. Joaquim de Arruda Falcão Neto Eduardo Soto Pires S. Stanislav Fundação Getúlio Veirano Attorneys-at-Law Miguel Ángel Sandoval Parada Vargas Law School Irina Stoeva Indacochea & Asociados, Rodrigo de Souza Costa Stoeva, Kuyumdjieva &Vitliemov Abogados Mauricio Faragone Faragone Advogados Benny Spiewak Ivaylo Uzunov Rodolfo Raoul Sanjinas Elizagoyen Luciano Feldens Gustavo Swenson Caetano Nikolay Yanev Sanjinas & Asociados Zenkner Schmidt, Poeta & Cerha Hempel Spiegelfeld Soc. Civ. Abogados Feldens Advogados Associados Mariana Tavares de Araujo Hlawati (CHSH) Levy & Salomão Advogados Victor Vargas Boriska Ferreira Rocha Anonymous Contributors Herrera & Abogados Cunha Ferreira Advogados Denise Vaz Moraes Pitombo Advogados Mario Zapata Marcela Cristina Fogaça Vieira Conectas Direitos Humanos Maurício Vedovato Cambodia Anonymous Contributors Lilla, Huck, Otranto, Isabel Franco Camargo Advogados Sherazade Delhoume Koury Lopes Advogados Teresa Wambier Brazil Legal Support for Iliana Graber De Aquino Pontifícia Universidade Children and Women Católica de São Paulo Pedro Abramovay Carlos Emmanuel Kem Ley Fundação Getúlio Vargas Joppert Ragazzo Anonymous Contributors Advance Research Fundação Getúlio Vargas Consultant Team Teresa Ancona Lopez University of São Paulo, Levy & Salomão Advogados Anonymous Contributors Faculty of Law Bulgaria Maira Rocha Machado José Manoel de Arruda Pavleta Alexieva Alvim Netto Antenor Madruga Bulgarian Center for Cameroon Pontifícia Universidade Barbosa, Müssnich & Not-for-Profit Law Católica de São Paulo Aragão Advogados Angoh Angoh J. Crombois Felipe Asensi Sergio Nelson Mannheimer Legal Power Law Firm American University in Bulgaria FGV Andrade & Fichtner Advogados Feh Henry Baaboh Velichka Dzhambazova Maria Celina Bodin de Moraes Edson Mazieiro Henry Samuelson & Co. Ralchevi Stanev Dzhambazova Pontifícia Universidade Paulo Roberto Murray Law Firm Católica do Rio de Janeiro Ndi Nelly Kahndi Boyko Guerginov Alberto Mori Jing & Partners Cerha Hempel Spiegelfeld Rogério Carmona Bianco Trench, Rossi & Watanabe Hlawati (CHSH) Lilla, Huck, Otranto, Monny Lobe Camargo Advogados Daniela Muradas Faculty of Medicine, Nikolai Hristov Federal University of Université de Yaoundé I Medical University of Sofia Thiago Bottino Minas Gerais (UFMG) Fundação Getúlio Tanyi Joseph Mbi Gergana Ilieva Vargas Law School Luiz Paulo Pieruccetti Marques Tanyi Mbi &Partners Kolcheva, Smilenov, Vieira, Rezende, Barbosa Koev and Partners Julio Cesar Bueno e Guerreiro Advogados Valentine N. Ndikum Pinheiro Neto Advogados Faculty of Medicine and Dimitar Ivanov Fabio Peixinho Gomes Correa Biomedical Sciences, Dimitrov Ivanov & Partners Daniel Bushatsky Lilla, Huck, Otranto e Université de Yaoundé I Advocacia Bushatsky Camargo Advogados Vladimir Ivanov Tayou Tagny VIP Consult Vivian Calderoni Maria Fernanda T. Peres Faculty of Medicine and Conectas Human Rights University of São Paulo Biomedical Sciences, Ilya Komarevski Université de Yaoundé I Tsvetkova Bebov and Partners Mario de Barros Duarte Garcia Miguel Reale Júnior Duarte Garcia, Caselli University of São Paulo Anonymous Contributors Marina Nenova Guimarães e Terra Advogados Faculty of Law Medical University of Varna
135 WJP Rule of Law Index
Gaynor Roger Canada Shibley Righton LLP China Croatia David Asper Barbara Von Tigerstrom University of Manitoba, Liu Kaiming Boris Bakota University of Saskatchewan, Faculty of Law The Institute of Contemporary Faculty of Law in Osijek College of Law Observation Carol Aylward Ivana Dominković Anonymous Contributors Dalhousie University Apo Leong Bardek, Lisac, Musec, Asia Monitor Resource Centre Skoko, Sarolic d.o.o. in Bob Barnetson cooperation with CMS Athabasca University Chile He-Qingjie Kristijan Grdjan Karen Busby Jia Ping UN Theme Group on HIV/ University of Manitoba, Diego Abogabir Egana China Global Fund AIDS - UNDP Croatia Faculty of Law Watch Initiative Gonzalo Cisternas Iva Jovovic Daniel M. Campbell QC Espina, Zepeda & Acosta Fen Shao Cox & Palmer Legal Clinic for Labor, Darko Jurisic Sergio Gamonal Contreras Yunnan University General Hospital - Karen Campbell Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Dr. J. Bencevic Cox & Palmer Zhang Wanhong Roberto Guerrero D. Public Interest and Development Ivan Kos Jason Foster Guerrero, Olivos, Law Institute, Wuhan University PETOŠEVIĆ Athabasca University Novoa y Errazuriz Anonymous Contributors Boris Kozjak Fabien Gélinas Roberto Guerrero V. McGill University Pontificia Universidad Catolica Marko Lovrić de Chile School of Law William H. Goodridge Colombia Dalida Rittossa Supreme Court of Davor Harasic Faculty of Law, Universidad de Chile University of Rijeka Newfoundland and Labrador Eduardo Barajas Rosario University Elise Groulx Gaston Mansilla Djuro Sessa Association of Croatian Judges International Criminal Defence Mauricio A. Bello Galindo Fernando Maturana Crino Attorneys Association Baker & McKenzie Eyzaguirre & Cía. Alan Soric Colombia S.A. Chuck Harrison Law Office Soric Omar Morales Fasken Martineau Hector Hernandez Botero Montt & Cía. Ana Stavljenic-Rukavina DuMoulin LLP Prieto Carrizosa University of Zagreb Patricio Morales Jula Hughes Eduardo Cardenas Caballero Estudio Jurídico Pérez Anonymous Contributors University of New Brunswick Cárdenas & Cárdenas Donoso y Cia Abogados Ltda. Gary Kobinger Luis Parada Public Health Agency of Canada Marcela Castro Bahamondez, Álvarez & Zegers Czech Republic Universidad de Los Andes Hoi Kong Manuel Jimenez Pfingsthorn McGill University Jose Duran Ondrej Dusek Jara Del Favero Abogados Ltd. Excellentia Marc Laporta Jan Filip Fernando Lolas Hermes Garcia Faculty of Law, Masaryk University of Chile John N. Lavis Cavelier Abogados University McMaster University Carla Robledo Jorge Gonzalez-Jacome Pavel Holec Estudio Carvallo Louis Letellier de St-Just Universidad Javeriana Holec, Zuska & Partners, Attorneys-at-law Moises Sanchez Katherine Lippel Jorge Lara Fundacion Pro Acceso University of Ottawa LaraConsultores Stepan Holub Holubova - advokati s.r.o. Luis A. Silva Glen Luther Maria Fernanda Navas-Herrera Universidad de los University of Saskatchewan, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Jan Hurdík Andes Law School College of Law Masaryk University Luis Nieto Alan Spencer Constance MacIntosh Nieto & Chalela Marie Jansova Alessandri & Compañia Schulich School of Law Glatzova & Co., s.r.o. Posse Herrera & Ruiz Juan Enrique Vargas Dwight Newman Eva Kocmanová Diego Portales Law University of Saskatchewan Angela Maria Ruiz Sternberg EK Law Office School Universidad del Rosario Darrel Pink Tomas Matejovsky Jorge Wahl Silva Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society Fredy A. Sandoval CMS Cameron Alessandri & Compañía Fredy A. Sandoval Abogados McKenna Richard Perras Anonymous Contributors Cordeau Pare Meunier Raul Suarez Arcila Radek Matous Balcar Polansky Eversheds Caroline Potvin Natalia Tobón Pharmacists without Borders Cavelier Abogados Zoltan Palinkas Schonherr Heather Raven Anonymous Contributors
136 Contributing Experts
Nataša Randlová Ramon Antonio Morales Andres Parmas Eric Wallenbrock Randl Partners Quintanilla Supreme Court Bird & Bird Morales Rodriguez Martin Strnad Melara Abogados Juri Saar Anonymous Contributors Havel, Holásek & Partners University of Tartu Marta Celina Rodríguez Zeiner & Zeiner de Parada Joel Starkopf Fundación Salvadoreña para Faculty of Medicine, Germany Anonymous Contributors el Desarrollo Económico University of Tartu y Social (FUSADES) Hubertus Becker Gaabriel Tavits Rechtsanwälte Becker Juan José Planas Carías University of Tartu Sennhenn Schuster Dominican Banco Agrícola, S.A Andres Vutt Oliver Bolthausen Republic Délmer Edmundo University of Tartu BridgehouseLaw Rodríguez Cruz Escuela Superior de Anonymous Contributors Leandro Corral Central Institute of Mental Economía y Negocios Estrella & Tupete, Abogados Health (CIMH) Piero Antonio Rusconi Gutierrez Virgilio Bello Gonzalez Ethiopia Gregor Dornbusch Bello Rosa & Bello Gonzalez, Rusconi, Medina & Asociados Central-Law Attorneys at Law Thomas Feltes Dubale Z. Addisu University of Bochum Humberto Sáenz Marinero Juan Manuel Caceres Haramaya University Sáenz & Asociados Troncoso y Caceres Ulrich Keil H. Jemal Oscar Samour Alberto E. Fiallo S. Addis Ababa University Alexander Putz Consortium Centro Pellerano & Herrera Putz und Partner América Abogados Kebede Deribe Kassaye Virgilio A. Mendez Michael K. Riefer Rommell Ismael Mendez & Asociados Alemu Meheretu Sandoval Rosales Jimma University Henning Rosenau Consultor Internacional Juan Musa University of Augsburg en Libre Ejercicio Domínguez Brito Wondemagegn Tadesse Addis Ababa University Stephan Sander Jose Eduardo Tomasino Hurtado Jose M. Paez Kanzlei Sander Consortium Centro Paez-Mueses-Castillo Lubo Teferi Kerorsa América Abogados & Asociados Adama University Daniel Schulz Carroll, Burdick & McDonough Benjamin Valdez Carolina Pichardo Toral Abrham Yohannes International LLP Iraheta Biaggi & Messina Abrham Law Office Benjamin Valdez & Asociados Rainer Seitz Georges Santoni-Recio Anonymous Contributors Anonymous Contributors Russin Vecchi & Heredia Bonetti Alexander Baron von Engelhardt
Anonymous Contributors Anonymous Contributors Estonia France
Patrick Bernard El Salvador Tiit Elenurm Ghana Estonian Business School Pr Calvès Irene Arrieta Azanne Kofi Akainyah Carri Ginter Arrieta Bustamante S.A de C.V. Catherine Cathiard A & A Law Consult University of Tartu Rebecca Atanacio de Basagoitia Veronique Chauveau Emma Amakye Kari Kasper A & A Law Consult Tallinn University of Technology, Jose Caballero Olivier de Boutiny Tallinn Law School University of the BBG Associés John E. Amakye West of England A & A Law Consult Tanel Kerikmäe N. Fleury Tallinn University of Technology, Mauricio Cader Ashurst Nene Amegatcher Tallinn Law School Sam Okudzeto & Associates Carlos Enrique Castillo G. Jean-Charles Froment Liisa Linna Romero Pineda & Asociados Université Pierre Mendès Julie Asante France de Grenoble Integritas DLM Abogados- Valdo Lips Luiga Mody Haal Borenius Notarios-Consultores J. Martin Rachel Baddoo Laryea, Laryea & Co. Jaanus Mägi Ana Yesenia Granillo de Tobar Nicolas Mathieu Concordia Attorneys at Law Skadden, Arps, Slate, Paa Kwesi Hagan Orlando Ernesto Lemus Herrera Meagher & Flom LLP Fugar & Company Bufete Lemus Marianne Meiorg Estonian Human Rights Centre Patrick Murray Nii Nortey Hanson-Nortey Diego Martín-Menjívar Winston & Strawn LLP National TB Control Programme Merle Muda Consortium Centro of Ghana Health Service University of Tartu América Abogados Dominique Tricaud Tricaud Traynard Devonec Olusola Ogundimu Priit Pahapill Carlos Mauricio Molina Fonseca Stephane Le Guen Integrated Legal Consultants Bufete Molina y Asociados Luiga Mody Hääl Borenius
137 WJP Rule of Law Index
Sam Okudzeto Boughton Peterson Hemal P. Shroff Roberto Ceccon Sam Okudzeto & Associates Yang Anderson Tata Institute of Social Sciences Ceccon & Associati
Sam Poku Eric TM Cheung Prakash Singh Vittorio Cerulli Irelli Business Council for Faculty of Law, University Africa (BCA) of Hong Kong S.R. Subramanian Diana Urania Galetta Indian Institute of Technology Università degli Studi di Milano Michael Quarshie Surya Deva Faculty of Law, City Rajinder Vishwanath Gianfranco Di Garbo Jacob Saah University of Hong Kong Hewlett-Packard Baker & McKenzie
Mohammed Shahadu Rick Glofcheski Anonymous Contributors Paolo Greco Gyandoh Asmah & Co. Faculty of Law, University University of Salerno of Hong Kong Anonymous Contributors Enrico M. Mancuso John Kong Shan Ho Indonesia Baker & McKenzie Faculty of Law, City University of Hong Kong Luigi Mori Hamud M. Balfas Guatemala Biolato Longo Ridola & Mori Ali Budiardjo Nugroho Christopher Hooley Reksodiputro Oldham, Li & Nie Giovanni Nardulli Rodolfo Alegria T. Legance Studio Legale Associato Carrillo y Asociados Rahayu Ningsih Hoed A.K.C. Koo Faculty of Law, University Fulvio Maria Palombino Ruby Asturias Winita E. Kusnandar of Hong Kong University of Naples, Aczalaw Kusnandar & Co. Faculty of Law Charles C L Kwong Jorge Rolando Barrios M. Sartono School of Arts and Social Emanuele Panattoni Bonilla, Montano, Hanafiah Ponggawa & Partners Sciences, The Open Labruna Mazziotti Segni Toriello & Barrios University of Hong Kong Hadi Pratomo Giovanni Pasqua Alvaro Cordon University of Indonesia, Anonymous Contributors International Institute of Higher Cordon, Ovalle & Asociados Faculty of Public Health Studies in Criminal Sciences Mario Roberto Guadron Rouanet Mardjono Reksodiputro Roberto Rosapepe University of Indonesia India University of Salerno Estuardo Mata Quiñones, Ibarguen, Andrew I. Sriro Piero Venturini Luján & Mata, S.C. Jhelum Chowdhury Dyah Ersita & Partners Alberto Zucconi Enrique Moller Vyapak Desai Anonymous Contributors Istituto dell’Approccio Centrato Moller Attorneys at Law Nishith Desai Associates Sulla Persona (IACP) Gabriel Muadi E.N. Thambi Durai Anonymous Contributors Muadi & Murga Durai Group Companies Iran
Oscar Pineda Pankaj Jain Ardeshir Atai Moller Attorneys at Law Atai & Associates Law Offices Jamaica Rajas Kasbekar Juan Jose Porras Little & Co., Advocates Parviz Azadfallah Palomo & Porras and Solicitors Natalie Corthesy Tarbiat Modares University Faculty of Law, University Jose E. Quinones Anuj Kaul of the West Indies, Mona A.K. Zamani Moghaddam Quiñones, Ibargüen, Legasis Services Private Limited Luján & Mata, S.C. Annette Crawford Sykes Yahya Rayegani Suresh Kumar University Hospital of the Farjam Law Office Eduardo Rosenberg Institute of Palliative Medicine West Indies, Mona Marroquin, Rosenberg Anonymous Contributors & Associates Rajiv K. Luthra J. Peter Figueroa Luthra & Luthra Law Offices University of the West Luis Enrique Solares Larrave Indies, Mona Asensio, Barrios Andrade Vipender Mann Italy & Asociados KNM & Partners Rachael Irving University of the West Carmen Ximena Saurabh Misra G. Ajani Indies, Mona Arias & Munoz Saurabh Misra & Associates University of Torino Derrick McKoy Anonymous Contributors Shantanu Mohan Puri Mariano Cingolani University of the West Shantanu Mohan & Associates Università of Macerata Indies, Mona
A. Nagarathna Astolfo Di Amato Stacey Mitchell Hong Kong National Law School Frater, Ennis & Gordon of India University Antonella Antonucci SAR, China Università di Bari David C. Smith Anil Paleri Institute for Sustainable Edward Alder Institute of Palliative Medicine Francesco Bico Development, University Prince’s Chambers De Luca Law Firm of the West Indies Amit Prakash Farzana Aslam R. Caranta Anonymous Contributors University of Hong Kong Priyesh Poovanna Turin University Hewlett-Packard
138 Contributing Experts
Zhenis Kembayev Stephen Okeyo Riad Madani Japan Kazakhstan Institute of Manar University of Management, Economics Leonard S. Opundo Tripoli (MUT) Yasuhiro Fujii and Strategic Research Opundo & Associates Advocates Baker & McKenzie (KIMEP) University Raymond Medlej Peter Ouma Medlej Law Firm Yuji Fujita Roman Nurpeissov Kenya Institute of Fuji Law Office Faculty of Law, Kazakhstan Medical Research Adel Mourad Institute of Management, Manar University of Toshiaki Higashi Economics and Strategic Yvonne Wangui Machira Tripoli (MUT) Denso Kitakyushu Co. Research (KIMEP) Tafiti Research Group Ltd. School of Law Mohamad Ramadan Shigetoshi Hirano Anonymous Contributors Elaref Law Office Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners Yerjanov Timur Al-Farabi Kazakh Hafez Zakhour Shigeji Ishiguro National University Oguri & Ishiguro Law Office Kyrgyzstan Anonymous Contributors Alida N. Tuyebekova Nobuo Koinuma Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd. Tohoku University Graduate Nodira Akbaralieva School of Medicine Anonymous Contributors Liberia Nurlan Alymbaev Yumiko Mochizuki National Cancer Center Nurlan Bakirov Pearl Brown Bull Research Institute Kenya Bull Law Firm Ms. Elvira Takashi Maruta Grata Law Firm F. Augustus Caesar Jr. Kwansei Gakuin Law School James Geseke M. Caesar Architects Inc. Mang’erere J. & Co. Advocates Azamat Kerimbaev Masanobu Nakamura American Bar Association John Hummel International Education Anthony Gross Rule of Law Initiative Oregon Consensus Institute Information Centre A.F. Gross & Company at Portland State University Advocates Khakimov Ruslan Yasutaka Ogawa Soros Foundation Kyrgyzstan Mohamedu F. Jones Jackie Kamau Anonymous Contributors Laibuta, Kamau & Co. Advocates Nazik Satkeyeva Meredith Safer Kalikova & Associates Simon Kariuki Anonymous Contributors Kenya Medical Research Institute Kanat Seidaliev Jordan Grata Law Firm Kamau Karori Iseme, Kamau & Saodat Shakirova Malaysia D. Abatah Maema Advocates Kalikova & Associates Jordan University Azmi Mohd Ali Kioko Kiilu Ulan Tilenbaev Tarik H. Arida Azmi & Associates Kenya Red Cross Kalikova & Associates Arida Law Firm Ashgar Ali Ali Mohamed Stanley Kamau Maina Anonymous Contributors Eman Al-Dabbas International Islamic University Ahad Kenya Trust International Business Legal Associates Naemah Amin Eric Kibet Morusoi International Islamic University Advocate of the High Lebanon Yousef S. Khalilieh Court of Kenya Rajai K. W. Dajani & S.B. Cheah Associates Law Office Adib Bou Habib S.B. Cheah & Associates Salima Mohammed Lebanese Trade Unions Kenya Red Cross Society Nisreen Mahasneh Training Center – LTUTC Nik AK Mahmod Yarmouk University Remigeo P. Mugambi Sleiman Dagher Zoharah Omar Muthoga, Gaturu & Abedalelah Al-Nawaiseh Badri and Salim El Universiti Putra Malaysia Co., Advocates Faculty of Law, Mu’tah University Meouchi Law Firm Vijayan Venugopal Dennis Mung’atta Mahmoud Ali Quteishat Antoine Ghafari Shearn Delamore & Co. Gichimu Mung’atta Ghafari & Associates & Co. Advocates Dima Yousef Anonymous Contributors Khatoun Haidar Martin Munyu Azzam Zalloum Iseme, Kamau & Zalloum & Laswi Law Firm Amjad Kanaan Maema Advocates University of Balamand, Mexico Anonymous Contributors Faculty of Medicine Kiingati Ndirangu Kairu Mbuthia & Isis Anaya Maya Khairallah Kiingati Advocates Lebanese American University Kazakhstan Teresa Carmona Anthony Njogu Georges Labaki Daly & Figgis Iker Arriola Notre Dame University Valery Chechulin White & Case LLP Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd. Angela Achieng Ochumba Souraya Machnouk Iseme, Kamau & Alberto Balderas Abou Jaoude & Maema Advocates Jáuregui, Navarrete y Nader, S.C. Associates Law Firm
139 WJP Rule of Law Index
Iñigo Cantu Reus Miriam R. Cazm QC Mary-Rose Russell Cantu Reus Abogados Netherlands Auckland University Kate Diesfeld of Technology Teresa Cantu Reus University of Waikato Marieke Andringa Cantu Reus Abogados Feona Sayles Heussen Attorneys and Christine Egan Massey University Civil-law Notaries Eugenio J. Cárdenas A J Park Stanford Law School Cheryl Simes Duco de Boer Austin Forbes QC Kiwilaw Advocates Ltd Stibbe Hans Goebel A. J. Forbes QC Jauregui, Navarrete y Nader Peter Spiller R.J. Boswijk Andrew Geddis District Court Alfredo Kupfer Faculty of Law, Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof Baker & McKenzie University of Otago Paul Sumpter Hoegen Dijkhof Attorneys & Tax Counsellors Oliva Lopez Arellano Claudia Geiringer D. Underwood Victoria University of Wellington S.F.H. Jellinghaus Sergio López Moreno School of Law, New Zealand Alan Webb University of Tilburg Universidad Autonoma Centre for Public Law Metropolitana D.V. Williams M.M. Koevoets Guillermina Natera Paul Gooby University of Auckland Law Faculty C. Kortmann Guillermo Piecarchic Geoff Hall University of Nijmegen PMC Group Faculty of Law, Scott Wilson University of Otago Duncan Cotterill Daan de Lange Julio Hernandez Pliego Brinkhof Bufete Hernandez Pliego Michael Heron Anonymous Contributors Russell McVeagh Jolanda A.C. Meeuwissen Carlos Riquelme Trimbos Institute Carrancá, Araujo, Robert Hesketh Acosta y Riquelme Office of Human Nigeria Carla Schoonderbeek Rights Proceedings NautaDutilh Cristina Sanchez-Urtiz Joseph Abugu Miranda & Estavillo S.C. Bill Hodge Martijn Snoep Abugu & Co., Solicitors De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek Monica A. Schiaffino Perez Justin Hygate Adedeji Adekunle Basham, Ringe y Correa, S.C. New Zealand Companies Office Jacqueline van den Bosch Nigerian Institute of Houthoff Buruma Advanced Legal Studies Jorge Luis Silva-Mendez Helen Kelly Instituto Tecnológico New Zealand Council Arnold Versteeg Onjefu Adoga Autónomo de México of Trade Unions Brinkhof Brooke Chambers Pietro Straulino Blair Kiddle J. Walburg Olisa Agbakoba Sanchez DeVanny Esseverri Lyon O’Neale Arnold Trimbos Institute Olisa Agbakoba & Associates Juan Francisco Torres Landa Alan Knowsley Anonymous Contributors Chioma Kanu Agomo Barrera, Siqueiros y Rainey Collins University of Lagos Torres Landa, S.C. Andrew Little Ademola Ajuwon Anonymous Contributors Engineering, Printing & New Zealand University of Ibadan Manufacturing Union Taiwi Esther Akintade Denise Arnold Fiona Glen McLean Yusuf Ali & Co. Morocco Lyon O’Neale Arnold Hewlett-Packard Yusuf Ali Sylvia Bell Brenda Midson Samir Bensaid Yusuf Ali & Co. Human Rights Commission University of Waikato Richard D. Cantin Yomi Alliyu Marie Bismark Stephen Mills QC Juristructures LLP Chief Yomi Alliyu & Co. Buddle Findlay Shortland Chambers Kettani Mehdi Seyi Akinwunmi Peter Boshier Ron Paterson Kettani & Associates Akinwunmi & Busari, Family Court of New Zealand Faculty of Law, University Legal Practitioners of Auckland Tarik Mossadek Simon Bridges University of Settat, Bamidele Aturu New Zealand Parliament Nicola Peart Faculty of Law Bamidele Aturu & Co. University of Otago David Bromell Anis Mouafik Titilola Ayotunde- Institute of Policy Studies, Kate Redgewell Mouafik Law Firm Rotifa School of Government, Victoria Bell Gully Valuespeak Solicitors University of Wellington Nesrine Roudane Kevin Riordan NERO Boutique Law Firm Abdulhamid Abdullahi Bagara Andrew Butler New Zealand Defence Force Community Health and Marc Veuillot Research Initiative Glenn Cooper Campbell Roberts CMS Bureau Francis Wynn Williams and Co. The Salvation Army Lefebvre Maroc Ade Dejiadekunle Nigerian Institute of Alberto Costi Paul Roth Anonymous Contributors Advanced Legal Study Faculty of Law, Victoria Faculty of Law, University of Wellington University of Otago
140 Contributing Experts
Idowu Durosinmi-Etti Elizabeth Baumann Rhea Quimson Adepetun Caxton-Martins Stavanger Tingrett Peru Hewlett-Packard Agbor & Segun Karl Harald Sovig Teodoro Regala Eduardo Benavides Efena Efetie University of Bergen Angara Abello Concepcion Berninzon, Benavides, National Hospital Regala & Cruz Law Offices Vargas & Fernandez Geir Steinberg Nnenna Ejekam Advokatfirmaet Haavind AS Jonathan Sale Jorge Dávila Carbajal Nnenna Ejekam Associates Estudio Olaechea Stella Tuft Roy Enrico C. Santos Mary Ekemezie Microsoft Puyat Jacinto & Santos Dino Carlos Caro Coria Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie Caro & Associates Tor Vale John Silva Olumide Ekisola Law Firm Hartsang DA National Museum Juan Carlos Durand Grahammer Adejumo Ekisola and Ezeani Durand Abogados Jane Wesenberg Reginald Tongol Godwin Etim Kluge Advokatfirma DA Evan E. Morgan Aelex Legal Practitioners Cesar L. Villanueva Evan Morgan & & Arbitrators Anonymous Contributors Ateneo de Manila Law School Asociados - Abogados Olubunmi Fayokun Anonymous Contributors Rubén Núñez Hijar Aluko & Oyebode Pakistan Estudio Núñez Abogados Peter K. Fogam Marco Alarcon Piana University of Lagos Poland Syed Muhammad Estudio Echecopar Farhad Tirmazi Vitalis Chukwumalu Ihedigbo Tarar & Associates César Puntriano Andrzej Brodziak Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors Muniz, Ramirez, Perez-Taiman Medical University of Silesia Umer Farooq & Olaya Attorneys at Law Clara Mbachu Ayub Medical College C. David DeBenedetti Kenna Partners Marcos Ricardo Revatta Salas DeBenedetti Majewski Parvez Hassan UNICA FMH “DAC” Szcześniak Kancelaria Godwin Obla Hassan & Hassan Advocates Prawnicza Sp.K. Obla & Co. Gustavo Víctor de Muzaffar Islam los Ríos Woolls Agnieszka Dzięgielewska-Jończyk Oladipo Odujinrin Legis Inn Attorneys & Rey & de los Ríos Hewlett-Packard Odujinrin & Adefulu Corporate Consultants Emil Ruppert Joanna Kobza Gbenga Odusola Asma Jahangir Rubio Leguía Normand Public Health Department, Gbenga Odusola & Co. Supreme Court Bar Silesian Medical University Association of Pakistan Alberto Varillas Seyi Ogunro García Sayán Abogados Agnieszka Lisiecka Banwo & Ighodalo Shahida Jamil Wardynski & Partners Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law Jose Luis Velarde Lazarte Patrick Okonjo Estudio Olaechea Piotr Majer Okonjo, Odiawa & Ebie Mansoor Hassan Khan Łaszczuk and Partners Khan & Associates Manuel Villa-Garcia Funmilola Morinoye Estudio Olaechea Konrad Marchiniuk Olaolorun Faiza Muzaffar Miller Canfield Legis Inn Attorneys & Anonymous Contributors Ayotunde Ologe Corporate Consultants Krzysztof Rastawicki SYNERGY Legal Practitioners Rastawicki Sawicki sp.k. and Property Consultants Sania Nishtar Heartfile Philippines Anonymous Contributors Akin Osinbajo Abdulai, Taiwo & Co. Amna Piracha Augusto Jose Y. Arreza Khan & Piracha Bolaji Owasanoye Arreza & Associates Romania Nigerian Institute of Adnan Aslam Qureshi Advanced Legal Studies Ciriaco Calalang Qureshi Law Associates Calalang Law Office Lucian Bondoc Festus O. Ukwueze White & Case LLP Junaid Abdul Razzak Faculty of Law, Jose Cochingyan, III University of Nigeria Cochingyan & Peralta Aura Câmpeanu Taffazul H. Rizvi Law Offices Petosevic Rivzi & Rizvi Ben Unaegbunam Adepetun, Caxton-Martins Afdal Kunting Cristian Bogaru Salman Safdar Agbor & Segun Hammond, Bogaru & Associates Chamber of Barrister Miguel B. Liceralde Sr. Salman Safdar Adamu M. Usman Radu Chirita F.O. Akinrele & Co. Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. Babes-Bolyai University Fatima Sajjad of Cluj-Napoca Anonymous Contributors Jesusito Morallos Anonymous Contributors Follosco Morallos & Herce Miloiu Ciprian Miloiu Ciprian Private Practice Alan C. Ortiz Norway Follosco Morallos & Herce Cosmin Flavius Costas Babes-Bolyai University Alfredo Z. Pio de Roda III of Cluj-Napoca Ivar Alvik Quasha Ancheta Pena & Nolasco University of Oslo Radu Diaconu
141 WJP Rule of Law Index
Ioana Gelepu Vuyokazi Matshaya Hwang Lee Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii Senegal African Medical & Korea University School of Law Research Foundation Anca Ioachimescu Hye Jeong Lee Aboubacar Fall Rubin Meter Doru & Gabriel Meyer Fall & Associates Law Offices Trandafir SCA Africa Legal Ki-su Lee Mouhamed Kebe Diana Maria Ionescu Budeli Mpfari Dae Jin Sah Geni & Kebe SCP d’Avocats Babes-Bolyai University University of South Africa Hewlett-Packard of Cluj-Napoca Ndeye Khoudia Tounkara Gloria Mtshali Ntombifikile Anonymous Contributors Etude Me Mayacine Balan Marius University of KwaZulu-Natal Tounkara et Associés Alexandru Ioan Cuza University Daphney Nozizwe El Hadj Omar Youm Vlad Neacsu Conco Spain Mame Adama Gueye & Associes Popovici Nitu & Partners Democratic Nursing Organization of South Africa Anonymous Contributors Juan Francisco Aguiar Rodriguez Gavrila Simona Petrina Servicio Canario de Salud University of Galati Dejo Owolu Gobierno de Canarias North-West University, Mafikeng Cristian Radu Singapore Roman Gil Alburquerque Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii Jimmie Earl Perry Sagardoy Abogados Stellenbosch University Radu Rizoiu Peh Yean Cheah Antonio Álvarez del Cuvillo STOICA & Asociatii Rajen Ranchhoojee Universidad de Cadiz Boon Teck Chia Dewey & LeBoeuf Danut Singurel Chia Wong LLP Carlos Alvarez-Dardet Hewlett-Packard Altair Richards Universidad de Alicante Koon-Hou Mak Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Claudiu Tampau Mak Heart Clinic Mar Carrasco Andrino White & Case LLP P.J.W. Schutte Universidad de Alicante Foo Cheow Ming North-West University Bogdan Trandafirescu KhattarWong Xavier Castells Oliveres University Ovidius Susan Scott Institut Municipal Constanta, Faculty of Law S. Suressh University of South Africa D’Investigacia Medica Harry Elias Partnership LLP Voicu & Filipescu Milton Seligson Francisco Javier Dávila González Josephus Tan Western Cape Bar Universidad de Cantabria Anonymous Contributors Patrick Tan LLC P.N. Stoop Hector Diaz Anonymous Contributors Department of Mercantile Law, Diaz-Bastien & Truan Abogados Russia University of South Africa Antonio Doval-Pais Marinda Surridge Universidad de Alicante South Africa Hewlett-Packard Svetlana Anokhina Andreas Neocleous and Co. Jose Fernández-Rañada G. Themboka Jonathan Berger Garrigues LLP Democratic Nursing Anton Bankovsky Section 27 Organization of South Africa Hogan Lovells Antonio Fernández G. Budlender Garrigues LLP Pieter du Toit Roman Golovatsky Cape Bar North-West University DLA Piper Martin Godino N.A. Cameron Gusha Xolani Ngantweni Igor Gorokhov Stellenbosch University Jacobo Dopico Gómez-Aller University of South Africa Capital Legal Services Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Etta Chang Anonymous Contributors Irina Krasnova Eversheds Gustavo de las Heras Russian Academy of Justice Universidad de Castilla- Arthur Chaskalson La Mancha Eduard Margulyan South Korea Margulyan & Rakhmilovich Hugh Corder Hector Jausas JAUSAS Natalya Morozova Rosalind Davey An Gang Hyeon Bowman Gilfillan Yonsei University Juan A. Lascurain Sanchez Evgeny Reyzman Universidad Autonoma Baker & McKenzie Chantelle Feldhaus Bae Hyuna de Madrid North-West University Ewha Womans University Aleksander Konstantinovich Ramon Mullerat Romanov Susan Goldstein Hewlett-Packard Moscow School of Social Juan Oliva and Economic Sciences Thembeka Gwagwa Jeongoh Kim Asociación de Economía Democratic Nursing Yonsei University de la Salud Rainer Wedde Organization of South Africa Beiten Burkhardt Yoo Hwan Kim José María Ordóñez Iriarte N. de Havilland Ewha Womans University Sociedad Española de Sanidad Andrey Zelenin The Centre for Ambiental (SESA) Espana Lidings Law Firm Constitutional Rights Haksoo Ko Seoul National University Josep Lluís de Peray Anonymous Contributors A. Leonard School of Law Departament de Salut University of South Africa
142 Contributing Experts
Antonio Pedrajas Quiles Anonymous Contributors Serap Zuvin Abdon Pedrajas & Molero Serap Zuvin Law Offices Ukraine
Luis Gaite Pindado Anonymous Contributors Misiats Andrij Hospital Universitario Thailand Misiats & Partners Marqués de Valdecilla Palawi Bunnag Alexander Bodnaruk Santiago Fernández Redondo Uganda International Legal Counsellors Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi Hospital La Princesa National University Paul Connelly P. Alunga Gregorio Tudela International Legal Counsellors Barugahare & Co. Advocates Zoryana Chernenko Universidad Autonoma Kiyv-Mohyla Academy de Madrid Alastair Henderson A. Bahemuka Herbert Smith LLP Kahuma, Khalayi & Borys Danevych Ester Villalonga Olives Aheeru Advocates Paritet Law Firm Institut Municipal Ugrid Milintangkul D’Investigacia Medica Patrick G.Barugahare Lyubomyr Drozdovskyy Alan Polivnick Barugahare & Co. Advocates D & U Partners Anonymous Contributors Watson Farley & Williams Daniel Kalinaki Nazar Fedorchuk Chanvit Tharathep Monitor Publications Ltd. Sweden Ministry of Public Health Vitali Gatseliuk Brian Kalule Nettaya Warncke Nsubuga & Co. Advocates Vitaliy Gordeev Jack Agren Morgulyan K.G. Law Bureau Stockholm University Chulapong Yukate Phillip Karugaba Baker & McKenzie LLP MMAKS Advocates Nick Karchevsky Gabriel Albemark Lugans State University Hamilton Law Firm Anonymous Contributors George Kasekende of Internal Affairs Kasekende, Kyeyune & Carl-Olof Bouveng Lutaaya Advocates Andriy Kirmach Advokatfirman Lindahl Chadbourne & Parke LLP Turkey Lillian Keene-Mugerwa Laura Carlson Platform for Labour Action Taras Kyslyy Stockholm University Pinar Ay Alexander Kibandama Olexander Martinenko Daniel Drott Synergy Solicitors and Advocates CMS Cameron McKenna LLC Ufuk Aydin Anadolu University Boel Flodgren Anita Muhanguzi Yaroslav Ognevyuk Lund University Centre for Batwa Minorities Doubinsky & Osharova Bahir Bozcali Bozcali Law Offices Fredrik Gustafsson Hasfa Namulindwa Yaroslav Petrov Advokatfirma Dla Nordic Kb Katende, Sssempebwa Asters Gokce Celen and Co. Advocates Celen Law Office Mats Hellström Alina Plyushch Hellström Law Firm Emilio Ovuga Integrites Murat Volkan Dülger Gulu University Dülger Law Firm Catherine Lions Olga Prokopovych E. Rukidi Chadbourne & Parke LLP Bertil Emrah Oder Olov Marsater Kasirye Byaruhanga Advocates School of Law, Koc University Faculty of Law, Uppsala & Legal Consultants Alexander Subbotin University Gökben Erdem Dirican John Bosco Rwakimari Oksana I. Voynarovska Pekin & Pekin Christoffer Monell Uganda IRS Project Vasil Kisil & Partners Law Firm Mannheimer Swartling Ece Goztepe Advokatbyrå Roscoe Sozi Andriy Zubach Bilkent University Kimuli & Sozi Advocates Andriy Zubach Partners Karol Nowak Naci Gündoğan Raoul Wallenberg Institute Fredrick Ssempebwa Anonymous Contributors Anadolu University of Human Rights and Katende, Ssempebwa Humanitarian Law and Co. Advocates Osman Hayran Yeditepe University Carl Odelberg Kiwanuka M. Ssenoga United Arab Hamilton Law Firm National Forestry Authority Altan Liman Emirates Aydas Liman Kurman Karl-Arne Olsson Mpiima Jamir Ssenoga Attorneys at Law Gärde Wesslau Advokatbyrå Kiwanuka, Lubega, Mpiima Ibrahim Elsadig & Co. Advocates Orhan Yavuz Mavioglu SNR Denton Claes Sandgren Alkan Deniz Mavioglu Law Firm Stockholm University Uganda Christian University Fahmy El-Hallag Pekin & Bayar Law Firm Lars Sandman Noah S. Wasige M. Mushash University of Boras MMAKS Advocates Zerrin Sungur United Arab Emirates University Anadolu University Johan Sangborn Anonymous Contributors Kavitha S. Panicker Swedish Bar Association Filiz Tepecik Panicker & Partners Anadolu University Sanna Wolk Abdul Karim Pharaon Stockholm University Cagatay Yilmaz Yilmaz Law Office
143 WJP Rule of Law Index
Marcus Wallman Hannah Quirk Gutierrez & Associates Gregory Odreman Al Tamimi & Company Manchester University Odreman &Asociados Jonathan Hiatt Mohammed Zaheeruddin Kiron Reid AFL-CIO John R. Pate University of Liverpool De Sola Pate & Brown Anonymous Contributors Debra Houry Katja Samuel Emory University Anonymous Contributors Nottingham University United Kingdom Alan Houseman Cassam Tengnah Center for Law and Social Policy Swansea University Vietnam Richard Ashcroft H. Scott Hurd Queen Mary, University Tony Ward Iowa State University Tran Thi Bich Ngoc of London University of Hull Indochine Counsel John Jacobi Mark Bell Anonymous Contributors Seton Hall Law School Kevin Hawkins University of Leicester Mayer Brown JSM H. David Kelly, Jr. Penny Brearey-Horne Beins, Axelrod, P.C. Nguyen Huu Phuoc University of Essex United States Phuoc & Partners Law Firm Eleanor D. Kinney Mark Butler Indiana University School Laura Abel Milton Lawson Lancaster University of Law - Indianapolis Brennan Center for Justice Freshfields Bruckhaus at NYU School of Law Deringer LLP David Cabrelli Nancy G. Lischer School of Law, University Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Jeffrey Aresty Huong Nguyen of Edinburgh Internet Bar Organization Luat Viet Thomas Y. Mandler Francesco P. Cappuccio Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Collen Beebe Purisaca Linh Nguyen Warwick Medical School Peace and Hope International Vilaf Hong-Duc Michael W. McConnell Janice Denoncourt Stanford Law School Sharon Camp Pham Van Phat Nottingham Law School Guttmacher Institute Anphat Pham Law Firm James Paturas Nigel Duncan Yale New Haven Health - Center Charles Clark Nguyen Nhan Quang The City Law School for Emergency Preparedness Indiana University Centre for Promotion and Disaster Response School of Medicine of Integrated Water Sarah Elliston Resources Management University of Glasgow James H. Pietsch James Cleary University of Hawaii University of Wisconsin Madison Anonymous Contributors Georgina Firth Lancaster University Renee Pobjecky Sherman L. Cohn Pobjecky & Pobjecky LLP Georgetown University Sara Fovargue Law Center Lancaster University John Pollock Public Justice Center Robert Collins Gabriel Gari University of Pennsylvania Centre for Commercial Vernellia Randall Law Studies, Queen Mary, The University of Dayton Elizabeth Defeis University of London School of Law Patrick Del Duca Bill Hebenton John Stone Zuber & Taillieu LLP Manchester University State University of New York at Buffalo Steven Eckhaus Simon Honeyball Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP University of Exeter David Yamada Suffolk University Law School Peter Edelman Rachel Jenkins Georgetown University King’s College London, Laura A. Young Law Center Institute of Psychiatry Anonymous Contributors Howard N. Fenton Pamela Keys Democratic Governance and Anderson Strathern LLP Rule of Law LLM Program, Ohio Northern University Judy Laing Venezuela Bristol University Kepler B. Funk Funk, Szachacz & Diamond LLC Jose J. Chique Stavroula Leka University of Nottingham Debra Gardner Rafael de Lemos Public Justice Center Raffalli, de Lemos, Mark Lubbock Halvorssen, Ortega y Ortiz Ashurst Stanton Glantz University of California Andrés José Linares Benzo Peter McTigue San Francisco Hoet, Pelaez, Castillo & Duque Nottingham Law School Kenneth W. Goodman Jaime Martinez E. J.S. Nguyen-Van-Tam University of Miami Rodner, Martinez & Asociados University of Nottingham Thomas Gottschalk Sonsiree Meza Leal Tonia Novitz DPZ Abogados
144 Part V: Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
The World Justice Project’s Founder, President and CEO, William H. Neukom.
The WJP’s Directors and Officers: Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad, Emil Constantinescu, Ashraf Ghani, William C. Hubbard, William H. Neukom, Mondli Makhanya, Ellen Gracie Northfleet, James R. Silkenat, Deborah Enix-Ross, Suzanne E. Gilbert, Lawrence B. Bailey, Roderick B. Mathews, and Gerold W. Libby.
WJP Executive Director, Hongxia Liu, and staff: April Baskin, Ted Carroll, Nabiha Chowdhury, Ana Cruz, Dorothy Garcia, Sophie Gebreselassie, Leila Hanafi, Pat Keyes, Xavier Muller, Sean O’Brien, Steve Ross, Joshua Steele, Nancy Ward, Robin Weiss, and Russom Woldezghi.
Academic advisors: Harris Pastides, University of South Carolina; Andrei Shleifer, Harvard University; Angela Pinzon, Universidad del Rosario; Robert Nelson, American Bar Foundation and Northwestern University; Claudia J. Dumas; Margaret Levi, University of Washington; Jack Knight, Duke University; Beatriz Magaloni, Stanford University; Tom Ginsburg, University of Chicago; Christopher Stone, Harvard University; Gordon Smith, University of South Carolina; Sam Muller, HiiL; Andrea Saltelli, EU-JRC; Michaela Saisana, EU-JRC; Jorge Zapp Glauser; Julio Faundez, Warwick University; Randal Peerenboom, La Trobe University and Oxford University; William T. Loris, Loyola University; Ronald Janse, HiiL and Utrecht University; Jose Caballero, University of the West of England; Lutforahman Saeed, Kabul University; Jorge Luis Silva, ITAM; Audrey Sacks, The World Bank; Maurits Barendrecht, Tilburg University; Martin Gramatikov, Tilburg University; Ghada Moussa, Cairo University; Wassim Harb, Arab Center for the Development of Rule of Law and Integrity (ACRLI); Eduardo Barajas, Universidad del Rosario; Angela Ruiz, Universidad del Rosario; Sherman Cohn, Georgetown University; Jon Gould, American University; Shannon Portillo, George Mason University; Susan Hirsch, George Mason University; Eduardo Cifuentes, Universidad de los Andes; Diego Lopez, Universidad de los Andes; Marcela Castro, Universidad de los Andes; Rene Uruena, Universidad de los Andes; Jorge Gonzalez, Universidad Javeriana; Clare Lockhart, The Institute for State Effectiveness.
William H. Gates, Sr.; Arthur Chaskalson; Hans Corell; Kunio Hamada; Richard Randerson; Hassan Bubacar Jallow; Paul Brest; Larry D. Kramer; Brad Smith; Michael Holston; Anne Kelley; Brackett B. Denniston, III; Bruce Sewell; Russell C. Deyo; Michael S. Greco; Rolf Alter; Iris Litt; Adam Gerstenmier; Laurence Tribe; Christina Biebesheimer; Murtaza Jaffer; Elisa Massimino; Stephen Zack; Laurel Bellows; R. William Ide, III; Liliana Moreno; Karan K. Bhatia; Frank Mantero; Cynthia Powell; Zsuzsanna Lonti; Sarah Alexander; Barbara Cooperman; Nigel H. Roberts; Claudia Rast; Sheila Hollis; Roger Martella; Irma Russell; Howard Kenison; Linn Hammergren; Roy L. Prosterman; Thomas M. Susman; Rob Boone; Michael Maya; Alvaro Herrero; Sandra Elena; Lina Alameddine; David Bruscino; Anna Gardner; Javier Ramirez; Carolina Cabrera; Sujith George; Marie-Therese Julita; John Pollock; Abderrahim Foukara; Ludmila Mendonça Lopes Ribeiro; Javier Castro De León; Hamud M. Balfas; Gustavo Alanis Ortega; Junaid Khalid; Adrian F. Revilla; Jose Cochingyan, III; Humberto Prado Sifontes; Lianne Labossiere; Minoru Furuyama; Rose Murray; Susanna Brown; Peggy Ochanderena; Jack Krumholtz; Ellen Mignoni; Se Hwan Kim; Katrina Moore; Kate Coffey; Justin Nyekan; and Ivan Batishchev.
The American Bar Association; The Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law; The Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University; Rule of Law Collaborative, University of South Carolina;
149 WJP Rule of Law Index
The Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies, Yale University; The Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, Stanford University; The Legal Department of Hewlett-Packard Limited; The Legal Department of Microsoft Corporation; American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources; American Bar Association Section of Health Law; American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law; American Bar Association Section of International Law; Vera Institute of Justice; Altus Global Alliance; APCO Worldwide; and Fleishman-Hillard.
WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 main financial supporters: The Neukom Family Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and LexisNexis.
WJP Honorary Chairs, Financial Supporters, and Sponsoring Organizations listed in the last section of this report.
The polling companies and research organizations listed on page 119 of this report, and the contributing experts listed in the previous section.
150 About the WJP
About The World Justice Project
The World Justice Project is a global, multidisciplinary initiative to strengthen the rule of law for the development of communities of opportunity and equity. In addition to the creation of a comprehensive Rule of Law Index, the WJP’s work is being carried out through the convening of global and regional meetings of world leaders, the provision of seed grants for rule of law projects, and the origination of new scholarship on rule of law issues. The Project’s efforts are dedicated to increasing public awareness about the concept and practice of the rule of law, developing practical programs in support of the rule of law at the community level, and stimulating government reforms that enhance the rule of law.
Founded in 2006 as a presidential initiative of the American Bar Association (ABA) and the support of the leading global organizations and individuals listed below, the World Justice Project became an independent, non-profit organization in 2009.
Goals and Program Areas Advancing the rule of law around the world is the central goal of the World Justice Project. Establishing the rule of law is fundamental to achieving communities of opportunity and equity— communities that offer sustainable economic development, accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights. Without the rule of law, medicines do not reach health facilities due to corruption; women in rural areas remain unaware of their rights; people are killed in criminal violence; corrupt governments divert public resources needed for public works; and businesses’ costs increase because of expropriation risk. The rule of law is the foundation to improving public health, safeguarding fundamental human rights, ensuring security, and fighting poverty.
The WJP’s definition of the rule of law is organized
153 WJP Rule of Law Index
under four universal principles and is derived from Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Hernando de Soto, William established international standards and norms: H. Gates, Sr., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Richard J. Goldstone, Kunio Hamada, Lee H. Hamilton, » The government and its officials and Mohamed Ibrahim, Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, agents are accountable under the law; Anthony M. Kennedy, George J. Mitchell, John » The laws are clear, publicized, stable Edwin Mroz, Indra Nooyi, Sandra Day O’Connor, and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including security of persons and property; Ana Palacio, Colin L. Powell, Roy L. Prosterman, » The process by which the laws are enacted, Richard W. Riley, Mary Robinson, Petar Stoyanov, administered, and enforced is accessible, Peter Sutherland, John J. Sweeney, Desmond Tutu, fair, and efficient; and Antonio Vitorino, Paul A. Volcker, Harry Woolf, » Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, Andrew Young, Zhelyu Zhelev. attorneys or representatives and judicial officers who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve. Board of Directors This definition has been tested and refined through Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad, Emil Constantinescu, extensive consultations with experts from around Ashraf Ghani, William C. Hubbard, Mondli the world. Makhanya, William H. Neukom, Ellen Gracie Northfleet, James R. Silkenat. The WJP works to create new mechanisms for advancing the rule of law through its three complementary and mutually reinforcing program areas: Mainstreaming; the Rule of Law Index; and Officers and Staff Scholarship. William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the Board; » Mainstreaming programs assemble world William H. Neukom, Founder, President and leaders through the WJP’s global and Chief Executive Officer; Deborah Enix-Ross, Vice regional meetings in five continents, as well as outreach meetings in the U.S. President; Suzanne E. Gilbert, Vice President; James » The WJP Rule of Law Index® is an R. Silkenat, Vice President; Lawrence B. Bailey, innovative assessment tool designed to Secretary; Roderick B. Mathews, Treasurer; Gerold provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries W. Libby, General Counsel. adhere to the rule of law in practice. » The Scholarship program supports Staff: Hongxia Liu, Executive Director; April Baskin, rigorous research examining the contributions of the rule of law to various Juan Carlos Botero, Juan Manuel Botero, Oussama aspects of political, economic, social, and Bouchebti, Ted Carroll, Nabiha Chowdhury, Ana cultural development and shedding new Cruz, Dorothy Garcia, Sophie Gebreselassie, Leila light on advancing the rule of law. Hanafi, Chelsea Jaetzold, Joel Martinez, Xavier Muller, Sean O’Brien, Alejandro Ponce, Christine Pratt, Kelly Roberts, Steve Ross, Joshua Steele, Honorary Chairs Nancy Ward, Raymond Webster, Robin Weiss, Russom Woldezghi. The World Justice Project has the support of outstanding leaders representing a range of disciplines around the world. The Honorary Chairs of the World Justice Project are: Financial Supporters Foundations: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Madeleine Albright, Giuliano Amato, Robert National Endowment for Democracy, Neukom Badinter, James A. Baker III, Stephen G. Breyer, Family Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Sharan Burrow, David Byrne, Jimmy Carter, Maria Foundation, Oak Foundation, GE Foundation, L. Cattaui, Arthur Chaskalson, Hans Corell,
154 About the WJP
Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New and/or of the World Justice Forum are: World York, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Allen Federation of Public Health Associations, U.S. & Overy Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Chamber of Commerce, Union Internationale des Foundation, Chase Family Philanthropic Fund. Avocats, Transparency International USA, People to People International, Norwegian Bar Association, Corporations: Microsoft Corporation; LexisNexis; Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human General Electric Company; Intel Corporation; Rights, International Trade Union Confederation, The Boeing Company; Merck & Co., Inc.; Wal- International Organization of Employers, Mart Stores, Inc.; Hewlett-Packard; McKinsey International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, & Company, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Texas Inter-Pacific Bar Association, Inter-American Bar Instruments, Inc.; E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Association, International Chamber of Commerce, Company; Viacom International Inc. Law Firms: International Bar Association, Human Rights K&L Gates; Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough Watch, Human Rights First, Hague Institute for LLP; Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; Winston & the Internationalisation of Law, Club of Madrid, Strawn LLP; Fulbright & Jaworski LLP; Sullivan Canadian Bar Association, NAFSA: Association of & Cromwell LLP; White & Case LLP; Allen & International Educators, American Society of Civil Overy LLP; Hunton & Williams; Welsh, Carson, Engineers, American Public Health Association, Anderson & Stowe; Mason, Hayes+Curran; Haynes American Bar Association, The World Council of and Boone, LLP; Garrigues LLP; Troutman Sanders Religious Leaders, Avocats Sans Frontieres, Arab LLP; Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP; Turner Freeman Center for the Development of the Rule of Law Lawyers; Cochingyan & Peralta Law Offices; SyCip and Integrity, World Federation of Engineering Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan. Professional Organisations. Firms: Major, Lindsey & Africa. Governments: Irish Aid. Professional and Trade Associations: For further details, visit www.worldjusticeproject.org. American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources; American Bar Association Section of Health Law; American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law; American Bar Association Section of International Law; U.S. Chamber of Commerce & Related Entities. Individual Donors: H. William Allen, Keith A. Ashmus, Lawrence B. Bailey, Mark S. Ellis, Deborah Enix-Ross, Suzanne E. Gilbert, Norman E. Harned, Thomas Z. Hayward, Jr., Claire Suzanne Holland, William C. Hubbard, R. William Ide, III, Roderick B. Mathews, M. Margaret McKeown, William H. Neukom, Scott F. Partridge, J. Anthony Patterson Jr., Llewelyn G. Pritchard, Erik A. Schilbred, James R. Silkenat, Leslie Miller, Hongxia Liu.
Sponsoring Organizations The World Justice Project is sponsored by organizations that provide global leadership in a variety of disciplines. The list of sponsoring organizations continues to expand, increasing in its ability to represent disciplines and world regions. The current sponsors of the World Justice Project
155 “Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established… That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans..., in order to declare justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries.”
Codex Hammurabi
“I could adjudicate lawsuits as well as anyone. But I would prefer to make lawsuits unnecessary.”
Analects of Confucius
“ The Law of Nations, however, is common to the entire human race, for all nations have established for themselves certain regulations exacted by custom and human necessity.”
Corpus Juris Civilis
“ Treat the people equally in your court and give them equal attention, so that the noble shall not aspire to your partiality, nor the humble despair of your justice.”
Judicial guidelines from ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, the second Khalifa of Islam
“No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny or delay right or justice.”
Magna Carta “Good civil laws are the greatest good that men can give and receive. They are the source of morals, the palladium of property, and the guarantee of all public and private peace. If they are not the foundation of government, they are its supports; they moderate power and help ensure respect for it, as though power were justice itself. They affect every individual; they mingle with the primary activities of his life; they follow him everywhere. They are often the sole moral code of a people, and they are always part of its f reedom. Finally, good civil laws are the consolation of every citizen for the sacrif ices that political law demands of him for the city, protecting, when necessary, his person and his property as though he alone were the whole city.”
Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis. Discours préliminaire du premier projet de Code civil
“All human beings are born f ree and equal in dignity and rights… Everyone is entitled to all the rights and f reedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights “The rule of law is the foundation for communities of opportunity and equity—it is the predicate for the eradication of poverty, violence, corruption, pandemics, and other threats to civil society.”
William H. Neukom, Founder, President and CEO of the World Justice Project
“The Rule of Law Index provides an unparalleled mechanism to help understand how law functions in countries around the world and assess where there are areas for improvement or praise. It is ripe with original, independent, and interesting data – some surprising and some that finally confirms what societies have known intuitively for a long time. In all cases, I am optimistic that the Index will advance necessary debates to improve the policies, procedures, and practices that shape rule of law around the world.”
Bill Gates Sr., Co-Chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
“As the most comprehensive measurement tool currently available to legal and judicial reformers, the Rule of Law Index highlights the strengths and weaknesses of national systems, thereby enabling comparisons among countries within a region or of similar GDP and, hopefully, will be widely accepted as a means of improving judicial services.”
Ellen Gracie Northfleet, former Chief Justice of Brazil
“When we talk about the rule of law, we mean more than adherence to the laws of the country whatever they may be. There has to be a substantial content to the law itself. If the rule of law is to have any meaning at all, as a constitutional principle, it must have a substantial element of protection of fundamental rights. And that is one of the great values, I believe, of the WJP Rule of Law Index. Where there’s a culture of respect for the rule of law, it is a bulwark against injustice.”
Arthur Chaskalson, former Chief Justice of South Africa
“As an educator, I’m convinced that access and equity in higher education isn’t possible in regions where a cogent Rule of Law is absent; as an epidemiologist, I have been most sensitive to the Index’s development as a statistical tool which will have a wide ranging impact.”
Harris Pastides, President of the University of South Carolina
740 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20005 U.S.A. www.worldjusticeproject.org ISBN 978-0-615-51219-8