Speaking Up for the Rule of Law

At its heart, the rule of law demands that laws are fair, applied equally, and enforced independently. However, a dangerous division has emerged: While some view the law as a technical procedure, authoritarian leaders exploit this narrow perspective to legalize tyranny through official channels and “rule by law.” This erosion is spreading rapidly as populist and nationalist movements across the world copy each other’s playbooks, dismantling democratic institutions faster than the world can defend them. This internal breakdown mirrors the fracturing global order.  

Drawing on decades of diplomatic experience, Patricia Espinosa, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary and Mexico's former Foreign Minister, warned that the post-1989 rules-based order is gone. "We are moving toward a redefinition of the international order," she noted. "It is not clear how it will turn out, but we know the features we should be maintaining in whatever shape the future global order takes."

Miguel de Serpa Soares, a senior UN legal official, shared a somber view of the future:

"I suspect the new international order will be worse... the rights of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are now being questioned."

Yet both emphasized that defending the rules-based order remains in the interest of all states, as shared rules create predictability and accountability. As Patricia put it, "We are all better off if we know what the rules of engagement between us are going to be." Without agreed norms, the most powerful actors determine the terms for everyone else, leaving developing nations and vulnerable populations with fewer protections.

When formal enforcement mechanisms are limited, leadership becomes even more important. Leaders must use their voice and legitimacy, as silence is complicity rather than neutrality.

Patricia made the case for public leadership clearly, saying,

"We need to see other leaders speaking up and talking about judicial breakdown… This lack of leadership in defending the rule of law is really affecting the situation that the world is in today. It is important to speak up and make the case that it is in the common interest of all of us."

For emerging lawyers, this presents a challenge that extends beyond legal analysis. Navigating institutional frameworks requires foresight, credibility, and the confidence to defend legal principles, even when political pressure encourages silence.

A clear conclusion from the Salzburg Global session was that governments alone cannot uphold the rule of law. Both Patricia and Miguel emphasized the vital role played by non-governmental organizations, civil society, industry groups, and other non-state actors.

Patricia argued they are indispensable to multilateral processes, as they bring deep, specialized knowledge. "These non-state actors have been making contributions for a long time,” she said, “and it has to do with the fact that in many cases they are really the experts… Officials sitting at their desks do not always have the knowledge or the specific technical advice."  

Miguel agreed that “there is growing room for civil organizations, NGOs, and others to be part of these complex processes... more and more, the multilateral processes need to be inclusive and open to actors other than states and international organizations. Because it’s a model that works.”

Patricia pointed to the mining sector as one example of how companies, government, civil society, and non-state actors can work together toward a “scenario where everybody has something to win.” When tensions arise between mining companies and local communities, non-state actors can step in as the voice of the public, bringing technical expertise that governments cannot replicate. By mobilizing communities and contributing specialized knowledge, these organizations help ensure global governance serves people.

Throughout the conversations, it became clear that the traditional divide between legal advice and political decision-making is artificial. Rejecting this old dichotomy, Miguel asserted that “in international law, law and policy merge very often,” as the environment demands a blend of both roles. Effective legal practitioners must understand both areas, engaging in the political process without being consumed by it.

“In the multilateral world, more diplomats have legal preparation, and more lawyers have diplomatic sensibility,” he explained.

In multilateral diplomatic processes, “The role of lawyers is to make sure the legal considerations are always taken into account in the decision-making process,” Miguel stated. At the same time, being part of the political process does not mean sacrificing legal integrity. Legal advisers are frequently pushed for immediate answers, but urgency should never justify poorly reasoned legal advice: "You can never compromise on principles… You have to learn not to bow to pressure,” Miguel advised.

The rule of law remains the prerequisite for sustained peace, fair governance, and human dignity. But defending it is not solely the responsibility of governments or international institutions. It also depends on lawyers who combine legal expertise with leadership, curiosity, and the courage to speak out when legal principles come under pressure.

Building a more resilient international order will require lawyers willing to bridge law and policy, uphold legal integrity under pressure, and defend these principles. The future of the international order will not be determined by institutions alone, but by the courage of those who operate within them – and who are willing to speak up when the rule of law is under pressure.

As Miguel advised the rising legal leaders leaving Salzburg as Fellows: 

"Be committed. Be curious. And be creative."