The World Justice Project - Rule of Law Index 2011

8/6/2019 The World Justice Project - Rule of Law Index 2011

1/158

Te World Justice Project

RuleofLaw Index

2011

Mark Davi Agras

Juan Carlos Boero

Alejanro Ponce

The orl Jusice Projec

A multidisciplinary, multinational

movement to advance the rule of

law for communities of opportunity

and equity


2/158

Te World Justice ProjectRule ofLaw Index2011

Mark avi Agras

Juan Carlos Boero

Alejanro Ponce

t

:D^W

dt:W


3/158


4/158

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.

_________________________

Copyright 2011 by The World Justice Project. The WJP Rule of Law Indexand 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.


5/158

ContentsExecutive Summary ..........................................................................1

Part I: Constructing the WJP Rule o Law Index ......................... 5

Part II: Te Rule o Law Around the World ....................................19

Regional Highlights ..........................................................................21

Country Proiles ................................................................................39

Data ables .......................................................................................107

Data Notes ........................................................................................117

Part III: Contributing Experts .........................................................123

Part IV: Acknowledgements .............................................................139

About Te World Justice Project ......................................................145


6/158


7/158

Executive Summary

1

adjudicator; and whether people can conduct their dailyactivities without ear o crime or police abuse.

he Index provides new data on the ollowing ninedimensions o the rule o law:

Limited government powers Absence o corruption Order and security

Fundamental rights Open government Regulatory enorcement Access to civil justice Eective criminal justice

Inormal justice

hese nine actors are urther disaggregated into 52 sub-actors. he scores o these sub-actors are built romover 400 variables drawn rom assessments o the general

public (1,000 respondents per country) and local legalexperts1. he outcome o this exercise is one o the world smost comprehensive data sets measuring the extent to

which countries adhere to the rule o lawnot in theorybut in practice.

Deining the rule o lawAs used by the World Justice Project, the rule o lawreers to a rules-based system in which the ollowing ouruniversal principles are upheld:

he government and its oicials andagents are accountable under the law.

he laws are clear, publicized, stable,and air, and protect undamental rights,including the security o persons andproperty.

he process by which the laws are enacted,administered, and enorced is accessible,air, and eicient.

Access to justice is provided by competent,independent, and ethical adjudicators,attorneys or representatives, and judicialoicers who are o suicient number,

have adequate resources, and relect themakeup o the communities they serve.

hese principles are derived rom international sourcesthat enjoy broad acceptance across countries with dieringsocial, cultural, economic, and political systems, andincorporate both substantive and procedural elements.

1 We are grateul or the generous engagement o the over 2,000 academics andpractitioners around the world who contributed their time and expertise, and the66,000 individuals who participated in the general population poll.

Executive Summaryhe rule of law is the foundation for communitiesof opportunity and equityit is the predicate forthe eradication of poverty, violence, corruption,

pandemics, and other threats to civil society.

William H. Neukom, Founder, President andCEO o the World Justice Project

Advancing the rule o law around the world is thecentral goal o the World Justice Project (WJP).Establishing the rule o law is undamental to achievingcommunities o opportunity and equitycommunities

that oer sustainable economic development, accountablegovernment, and respect or undamental rights. Withoutthe rule o law, medicines do not reach health acilitiesdue to corruption; women in rural areas remain unawareo their rights; people are killed in criminal violence; andirms costs increase because o expropriation risk. herule o law is the cornerstone to improving public health,saeguarding participation, ensuring security, and ightingpoverty.

he WJP Rule o Law Index is an innovativequantitative assessment tool designed to oer acomprehensive picture o the extent to which countriesadhere to the rule o law, not in theory, but in practice.

his report is the second in an annual series.

Indices and indicators are very useul tools. he systematictracking o inant mortality rates, or instance, has greatlycontributed to improving health outcomes around theglobe. In a similar ashion, the WJP Rule o LawIndex monitors the health o a countrys institutionalenvironmentsuch as whether government oicials areaccountable under the law, and whether legal institutionsprotect undamental rights and allow ordinary peopleaccess to justice.

he WJP Rule o Law Indexhe WJP Rule o Law Index presents acomprehensive set o indicators on the rule o law romthe perspective o the ordinary person. It examinespractical situations in which a rule o law deicit mayaect the daily lives o ordinary people. For instance, theIndex evaluates whether citizens can access public services

without the need to bribe a government oicer; whethera basic dispute among neighbors or companies can bepeaceully and cost-eectively resolved by an independent


8/158

WJP Rule ofLaw Index

2

learned during the WJPs implementation o the Index in66 jurisdictions. It is anticipated that global coverage willexpand to 100 countries in 2012.

More than hal o the countries included in the 2011report were also indexed in 2010. Country proiles orthese countries are based chiely on new data collectedduring the second quarter o 2011. However, because

country scores are normalized across the entire sample oindexed countries, individual country indings in the 2011report are not comparable to the previous years results.

he Index 2011 report introduces our conceptual andmethodological changes. First, Factor 3 (Clear, Publicizedand Stable Laws) and Factor 6 (Open Government) romthe 2010 report have been merged to orm Factor 5 othe current report. he sub-actors o Factor 2 (Absenceo Corruption) have been redeined to their currentstatus. hird, or the irst time data has been col lected ontransition o power, civil conlict, reedom o assembly andassociation, due process in administrative proceedings, and

criminal recidivism. Finally, in the measurement o Factor3 (Order and Security) a ew variables rom third-partysources have been incorporated into the Index. Changesintroduced in 2011 are explained in the Data Notessection o this report, and urther methodological detailsare provided in Botero and Ponce, Measuring the Rule of Law, 2011, available online at www.worldjusticeproject.org.

he Index is intended or a broad audience o policy-makers, civil society, practitioners, academics, and otherconstituencies. We hope that over time, this tool will helpidentiy strengths and weaknesses in each country under

review and encourage policy choices that advance the ruleo law.

About the World Justice Project

he World Justice Project (WJP) is a multinational andmultidisciplinary eort to strengthen the rule o lawthroughout the world. It is based on two complementarypremises: irst, the rule o law is the oundation orcommunities o opportunity and equity; and second,multidisciplinary collaboration is the most eective wayto advance the rule o law.

he WJPs work is being carried out through threecomplementary and mutually reinorcing program areas:Mainstreaming, the Rule o Law Index, and Scholarship.

he Projects eorts are dedicated to increasing publicawareness about the concept and practice o the ruleo law, developing practical programs in support o therule o law at the community level, and stimulatinggovernment reorms that enhance the rule o law. Furtherdetails are provided in the last section o this report andat www.worldjusticeproject.org.

Uses o the Indexhe WJP Rule o Law Index is an instrumentor strengthening the rule o law. It oers reliable,independent, and disaggregated inormation or policymakers, businesses, non-governmental organizations, andother constituencies to:

Assess a nations adherence to the rule olaw in practice;

Identiy a nations strengths and weaknesses in comparison to similarlysituated countries; and

rack changes over time.

While the WJP Rule o Law Index enters a crowdedield o indicators on dierent aspects o the rule o law, ithas a number o eatures that set it apart:

Comprehensiveness . While other

indices cover aspects o the rule o law,they do not yield a ull picture o rule olaw compliance.

New data. he Index indings are basedalmost entirely on new data collected bythe WJP rom independent sources. hiscontrasts it with other indices based ondata aggregated rom third-party sources,or on sources that are sel-reported bygovernments or other interested parties.

Rule of law in practice. he Indexmeasures adherence to the rule o law bylooking not to the laws as written but athow they are actually applied in practice.

Anchored in actual experiences.he Index combines expert opinion withrigorous polling o the general publicto ensure that the indings relect theconditions experienced by the population,including marginalized sectors o society.

Action oriented. Findings are presentedin disaggregated orm, identiying strongand weak perormers across the ninerule o law dimensions examined in eachcountry.

Despite these methodological strengths, the indingsshould be interpreted in light o certain inherent

limitations. While the Index is helpul in taking thetemperature o the rule o law in the countries understudy, it does not provide a ull diagnosis or dictateconcrete priorities or action. No single index can conveya ull picture o a countrys situation. Rule o law analysisrequires a careul consideration o multiple dimensions

which may vary rom country to countryand acombination o sources, instruments, and methods.

his report introduces the ramework o theWJP Ruleo Law Index and summarizes the results and lessons


9/158


10/158


11/158

Part I: Constructing theWJP Rule of Law Index

Mark David Agrast1 Juan Carlos Botero, and Alejandro Ponce

Te World Justice Project2

1 Mr. Agrast did not participate in the collection, analysis or review o the data and results (Part II o this report).2 his section builds on previous work developed in collaboration with Claudia J. Dumas.


12/158


13/158

Constructing the Index

7

Constructingthe WJP Rule oLaw Index

he WJP Rule o Law Index is an innovativequantitative assessment tool designed to oer adetailed and comprehensive picture o the extent to

which countries adhere to the rule o law in practice.

he Index introduces new indicators on the ruleo law rom the perspective o the ordinary person.It considers practical situations in which a ruleo law deicit may aect the daily lives o people.For instance, whether people can access publicservices without the need to bribe a governmentoicer; whether a basic dispute among neighborsor companies can be peaceully and cost-eectivelyresolved by an independent adjudicator; or whetherpeople can conduct their daily activities without

ear o crime or police abuse.

he Indexprovides new data on the ollowing ninedimensions o the rule o law: limited governmentpowers; absence o corruption; order and security;undamental rights; open government; regulatoryenorcement; access to civil justice; eective criminal

justice; and inormal justice. hese nine actors areurther disaggregated into 52 sub-actors.

he Indexs rankings and scores are the product o

a rigorous data collection and aggregation process.Data comes rom a global poll o the general publicand detailed questionnaires administered to localexperts. o date, over 2,000 experts and 66,000 otherindividuals rom around the world have participatedin this project.

he WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 is the secondreport in an annual series. It builds on our years


14/158


8

o the Index presented in 2010 or 66 countries,including updated data or the 35 countries indexedin 2010 plus new data or 31 additional countries.

We anticipate that the Index will expand to cover100 countries in 2012.

It should be emphasized that the Indexis intended

to be applied in countries with vastly diering social,cultural, economic, and political systems. No societyhas ever attainedlet alone sustaineda perectrealization o the rule o law. Every nation aces theperpetual challenge o building and renewing the

o development, intensive consultation, and vetting with academics, practitioners, and communityleaders rom over 100 countries and 17 proessionaldisciplines. Version 1.0 o the Index was presentedat the irst World Justice Forum in 2008, includingindings rom a pilot conducted in six countries.Version 2.0 was presented at the second World

Justice Forum in 2009, eaturing preliminaryindings or 35 countries. Version 3.0 was launchedin October 2010, eaturing a new version o the Indexand country proiles or the same 35 countries. hecurrent report introduces a slightly modiied version

Box 1. Why is the rule of law important?

/ t t K

/ >

(a) Business environmen

Imagine an invesor seeking o commi resources ^

^

(b) Public works

d/winesse evasaing earquakes causing builings/

(c) Public eal

D

h

d/o businessmen, builers, consumers, ocors, an

Low

income

Lower-mile

income

Upper-mile

income

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Hig

income

Figure 1: Corruption in public health services

Source: he WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database


15/158


9

was the substantive component o the rule o law. heprocess by which the laws were made was not air (only

whites, a minority o the population, had the vote). Andthe laws themselves were not air. hey institutionalizeddiscrimination, vested broad discretionary powers inthe executive, and ailed to protect undamental rights.

Without a substantive content there would be no answer

to the criticism, sometimes voiced, that the rule o lawis an empty vessel into which any law could be poured.

he our universal principles that emerged romour deliberations are as ollows:

I. he government and its oicials andagents are accountable under the law.

II. he laws are clear, publicized, stable,and air, and protect undamental rights,

including the security o persons andproperty.

III. he process by which the laws are enacted,administered, and enorced is accessible,air, and eicient.

IV. Access to justice is provided by competent,independent, and ethical adjudicators,attorneys or representatives, and judicialoicers who are o suicient number,have adequate resources, and relect themakeup o the communities they serve.

hese principles represent an eort to strike abalance between thinner and thicker conceptions othe rule o law, incorporating both substantive andprocedural elementsa decision which was broadlyendorsed by the many international experts with

whom we have consulted. A ew examples may beinstructive:

he principles address the extent to whicha country provides or air participationin the making o the lawscertainly anessential attribute o sel-government. Butthe principles do not address the urtherquestion o whether the laws are enactedby democratically elected representatives.

he principles address the extent to which a country protects undamentalhuman rights. But given the impossibilityo assessing adherence to the ull panoplyo civil, political, economic, social, culturaland environmental rights recognized inthe Universal Declaration, the principles

structures, institutions, and norms that can supportand sustain a rule o law culture.

Deining the rule o law he design o the Index began with the eort to

ormulate a set o principles that would constitutea working deinition o the rule o law. Havingreviewed the extensive literature on the subject, theproject team was prooundly conscious o the manychallenges such an eort entails. Among otherthings, it was recognized that or the principlesto be broadly accepted, they must be culturallyuniversal, avoiding Western, Anglo-American,or other biases. hus, the principles were derivedto the greatest extent possible rom establishedinternational standards and norms, and inormed

by a thorough review o national constitutions andscholarly literature. he principles and the actorsderived rom them were tested and reined throughextensive consultations with experts rom aroundthe world to ensure, among other things, theircultural competence.

It also was recognized that any eort to deinethe rule o law must grapple with the distinctionbetween what scholars call a thin or minimalistconception o the rule o law that ocuses onormal, procedural rules, and a thick conceptionthat includes substantive characteristics, such assel-government and various undamental rightsand reedoms. On one hand, it was elt that i theIndexwas to have utility and gain wide acceptance,the deinition must be broadly applicable to manytypes o social and political systems, including some

which lack many o the eatures that characterizedemocratic nations. On the other hand, it wasrecognized that the rule o law must be more thanmerely a system o rulesthat indeed, a system opositive law that ails to respect core human rights

guaranteed under international law is at best rule bylaw, and does not deserve to be called a rule o lawsystem. In the words o Arthur Chaskalson, ormerChie Justice o South Arica,

[]he apartheid government, its oicers and agentswere accountable in accordance with the laws; the lawswere clear; publicized, and stable, and were upheld bylaw enorcement oicials and judges. What was missing


16/158


10

Factor 1: Limited Government Powers Factor 2: Absence o Corruption

Limited Government Powers

he irst actor measures the extent to which those

who govern are subject to law. It comprises themeans, both constitutional and institutional, bywhich the powers o the government and its oicialsand agents are limited and by which they are heldaccountable under the law. It also includes non-governmental checks on the governments power,such as a ree and independent press.

his actor is particularly diicult to measure in astandardized manner across countries, since thereis no single ormula or the proper distribution opowers among organs o the government to ensurethat each is held in check. Governmental checks takemany orms; they do not operate solely in systemsmarked by a ormal separation o powers, nor arethey necessarily codiied in law. What is essentialis that authority is distributed, whether by ormalrules or by convention, in a manner that ensuresthat no single organ o government has the practicalability to exercise unchecked power.1

he actor measures the eective limitationo government powers in the undamental

law; institutional checks on government powerby the legislature, the judiciary and independentauditing and review agencies2; eective sanctions ormisconduct o government oicers and agents in allbranches o government; non-governmental checks ongovernment power3; and whether transers o poweroccur in accordance with the law.

Absence o Corruption

he second actor measures the absence ocorruption. he Index considers three orms o

1 he Index does not address the urther question o whether the laws are enacted bydemocratically elected representatives.

2 his includes a wide range o institutions, rom inancial comptrollers and auditing

agencies to the diverse array o entities that monitor human rights compliance (e.g.

Human Rights Deender, Ombudsman, Peoples Advocate, Deensor del

Pueblo, Ouvidoria, Human Rights Commissioner, iguskantsler, Mdiateur de

la Rpublique, Citizens Advocate, Avocatul Poporului). In some countries these

unctions are perormed by judges or other state oicials; in others, they are carried

out by independent agencies.

3 his includes the media, citizen activism, and civic and political organizations.

treat a more modest menu o rights,primarily civil and political, that areirmly established under international lawand bear the most immediate relationshipto rule o law concerns.

he principles address access to justice,but chiely in terms o access to legalrepresentation and access to the courts,rather than in the thicker sense in

which access to justice is sometimesseen as synonymous with broadlegal empowerment o the poor anddisranchised. Access to justice in thismore limited sense is a critical cornerstoneor the implementation o policies andrights that empower the poor.

In limiting the scope o the principles in this ashion,we do not wish to suggest any disagreement with amore robust and inclusive vision o sel-government,undamental rights, or access to justice, all o whichare addressed in other important and inluential

indices, as well as in various papers developed byWJP scholars. Indeed, it is among the premises othe project as a whole that a healthy rule o law iscritical to advancing such goals.

Moreover, the WJPs conception o the rule o law isnot incompatible with the notion that these universalprinciples may interact with each other in multiple

ways. For example, concrete improvements in onedimension o the rule o law may aect societiesin more than one way, depending on the prevailingcultural and institutional environments. It is ourhope that by providing data on nine independentdimensions o the rule o law, the Indexwill becomea useul tool or academics and other constituenciesto urther our understanding o these interactions.

he 2011 WJP Ruleo Law Index

his new version o the Indexis composed o nineactors derived rom the WJPs universal principles.

hese actors are divided into 52 sub-actors whichincorporate essential elements o the rule o law.

Accountable Government (Factors 1 and 2)

he irst principle measures governmentaccountability by means o two actors:


17/158


11

WJP Rule of Law Index

Factor 1: Limited Government Powers1.1 Government powers are defined in the fundamental law.

1.2 Government powers are effectively limited by the legislature.

1.3 Government powers are effectively limited by the judiciary.

1.4 Government powers are effectively limited by independent auditing and review.

1.5 Government officials are sanctioned for misconduct.

1.6 Government powers are effectively limited by non-governmental checks.

1.7 Transfers of power occur in accordance with the law.

Factor 2: Absence of Corruption2.1 Government officials in the executive branch do not use public office for private gain.

2.2 Government officials in the judicial branch do not use public office for private gain.

2.3 Government officials in the police and the military do not use public office for private gain.

2.4 Government officials in the legislature do not use public office for private gain.

Factor 3: Order and Security3.1 Crime is effectively controlled.

3.2 Civil conflict is effectively limited.

3.3 People do not resort to violence to redress personal grievances.

Factor 4: Fundamental Rights4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination are effectively guaranteed.

4.2 The right to life and security of the person is effectively guaranteed.

4.3 Due process of law and the rights of the accused are effectively guaranteed.

4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression is effectively guaranteed.

4.5 Freedom of belief and religion is effectively guaranteed.

4.6 The right to privacy is effectively guaranteed.

4.7 Freedom of assembly and association is effectively guaranteed.

4.8 Fundamental labor rights are effectively guaranteed.

Factor 5: Open Government5.1 The laws are comprehensible to the public.

5.2 The laws are publicized and widely accessible.

5.3 The laws are stable.

5.4 The right of petition and public participation is effectively guaranteed.

5.5 Official drafts of laws are available to the public.

5.6 Official information is available to the public.

Factor 6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement6.1 Government regulations are effectively enforced.

6.2 Government regulations are applied and enforced without improper influence.

6.3 Administrative proceedings are conducted without unreasonable delay.

6.4 Due process is respected in administrative proceedings.

6.5 The Government does not expropriate property without adequate compensation.

Factor 7: Access to Civil Justice7.1 People are aware of available remedies.

7.2 People can access and afford legal advice and representation.

7.3 People can access and afford civil courts.

7.4 Civil justice is free of discrimination.

7.5 Civil justice is free of corruption.

7.6 Civil justice is free of improper government influence.

7.7 Civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delays.

7.8 Civil justice is effectively enforced.

7.9 ADR systems are accessible, impartial, and effective.

Factor 8: Effective Criminal Justice8.1 Crimes are effectively investigated.

8.2 Crimes are effectively and timely adjudicated.8.3 The correctional system is effective in reducing criminal behavior.

8.4 The criminal justice system is impartial.

8.5 The criminal justice system is free of corruption.

8.6 The criminal justice system is free of improper government influence.

8.7 The criminal justice system accords the accused due process of law.

Factor 9: Informal Justice9.1 Informal justice is timely and effective.

9.2 Informal justice is impartial and free of improper influence.

9.3 Informal justice respects and protects fundamental rights.


18/158


12

Fundamental Rights

he ourth actor measures protection oundamental human rights. It recognizes that therule o law must be more than merely a system o

rulesthat indeed, a system o positive law thatails to respect core human rights guaranteed andestablished under international law is at best ruleby law, and does not deserve to be called a rule olaw system.

Sixty years ater its adoption, the UniversalDeclaration remains the touchstone or determining

which rights may be considered undamental,even as newer rights continue to emerge and gainacceptance. At WJP regional meetings conducted in

2008 and 2009, there was spirited discussion over which rights should be encompassed within theIndex. Many urged that the list be conined to civiland political rights, particularly reedom o thoughtand opinion, which bear an essential relationship tothe rule o law itsel. Others argued or a broadertreatment that would encompass social, economic,and cultural rights.

While the debate may never be ully resolved, it wasdetermined as a practical matter that since there are

many other indices that address human rights in allo these dimensions, and as it would be impossibleor the Index to assess adherence to the ull rangeo rights, the Index should ocus on a relativelymodest menu o rights that are irmly establishedunder international law and are most closelyrelated to rule o law concerns. Accordingly, actor4 covers eective enorcement o laws that ensureequal protection8; reedom o thought, religion, andexpression; reedom o assembly and association;undamental labor rights (including the right tocollective bargaining, the prohibition o orced and

Colombia or Liberia, or in those experiencing high levels o political violence orterrorism in recent years, such as Kenya, Nigeria, Russia, and Uganda.

8 he laws can be air only i they do not make arbitrary or irrational distinctions basedon economic or social statusthe latter deined to include race, color, ethnic or socialorigin, caste, nationality, alienage, religion, language, political opinion or ailiation,gender, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity, age, and disability. Itmust be acknowledged that or some societies, including some traditional societies,certain o these categories may be problematic. In addition, there may be dierencesboth within and among such societies as to whether a given distinction is arbitrary orirrational. Despite these diiculties, it was determined that only an i nclusive list wouldaccord ull respect to the principles o equality and non-discrimination embodied inthe Universal Declaration and emerging norms o international law.

corruption: bribery, improper inluence by publicor private interests, and misappropriation o publicunds or other resources.

hese three orms o corruption are examined withrespect to government oicers in the executivebranch (including the police and the military),

and those in the judiciary and the legislature. Ourinstruments take into account a wide range opossible situations in which corruption, rom pettybribery to kinds o raud, can occur, including theprovision o public services, procurement procedures,and administrative enorcement o environmental,labor, and health and saety regulations, amongothers.

Security and FundamentalRights (Factors 3 and 4)

he second principle encompasses two actors:

Factor 3: Order and Security Factor 4: Fundamental Rights

Order and Security

he third actor measures how well the societyassures the security o persons and property. Itencompasses three dimensions: absence o crime4;

absence o civil conlict, including terrorism andarmed conlict; and absence o violence as a sociallyacceptable means to redress personal grievances.

A ew variables rom third-party sources have beenincorporated into this actor in order to measurestructural rule o law situations that may not becaptured through general population polls or expertopinion. hese include, among others, the numbero events and deaths resulting rom high-casualtyterrorist bombings5, the number o battle-related

deaths, and the number o casualties resulting romone-sided violence.6 hese indicators are proxies orcivil conlict (sub-actor 3.2).7

4 his actor ocuses on conventional crime, including homicide, kidnapping, burglary,and thet.

5 Source: Center or Systemic Peace.

6 Source: Uppsala Conlict Data Program.

7 Results or sub-actor 3.2 in this report are limited. his is or two reasons. First,because most countries experiencing conlict or high levels o terrorism in 2011 werenot included in the sample o 66 countries indexed this year, with the exception oPakistan and, to a lesser extent, India. Second, because the included proxy variablesdo not ully capture conlict-related instability in post-conlict countries such as


19/158


13

measure the presence or absence o particular ormso regulation or examine how much regulation oa particular activity is appropriate. Rather, it seeksto assess how well regulations are implemented andenorced. his includes the absence o improperinluence by public oicials or private interests;adherence to administrative procedures that are

air, consistent, and predictable; and reedom romgovernment taking o private property withoutadequate compensation.

Access to Justice (Factors 7, 8, and 9)

he ourth and inal principle measures access tojustice by means o three actors:

Factor 7: Access to Civil Justice Factor 8: Eective Criminal Justice

Factor 9: Inormal Justice

hese actors measure whether ordinary people canpeaceully and eectively resolve their grievances inaccordance with generally accepted social norms,rather than resorting to violence or sel-help.

Access to civil justice requires that the systembe aordable, eective, impartial, and culturallycompetent. Eective criminal justice systems arecapable o investigating and adjudicating criminal

oences impartially and eectively, while ensuringthat the rights o suspects and victims are protected.

Impartiality includes absence o arbitrary orirrational distinctions based on social or economicstatus, and other orms o bias, as well as decisionsthat are ree o improper inluence by public oicialsor private interests.

Accessibility includes general awareness o availableremedies; availability and aordability o legal

advice and representation; and absence o excessiveor unreasonable ees, procedural hurdles, and otherbarriers to access to ormal dispute resolutionsystems. Access to justice also requires air andeective enorcement.

Finally, actor 9 concerns the role played in manycountries by inormal systems o law includingtraditional, tribal, and religious courts, as well ascommunity based systems in resolving disputes.

child labor, and the elimination o discrimination)9;the rights to privacy and religion; the right to lieand security o the person10; and due process o lawand the rights o the accused.11

Open Government and Regulatory

Enorcement (Factors 5 and 6)he third principle includes two actors:

Factor 5: Open Government Factor 6: Regulatory Enorcement

Factors 5 and 6 concern the extent to which theprocess by which the laws are enacted, administered,and enorced is accessible, air, and eicient.

Factor 5 measures open government, which includes

at its core the opportunity to know what the law isand what conduct is permitted and prohibited. hisrequires that the law be comprehensible and itsmeaning suiciently clear, publicized, and explainedto the general public in plain language, or them tobe able to abide by it. his is one o the most basicpreconditions or achieving and maintaining a ruleo law society capable o guaranteeing public order,personal security, and undamental rights.

Open government also encompasses the opportunity

to participate in the process by which the laws aremade and administered. Among the indicia oparticipation are: whether people have the rightto petition the government; whether proceedingsare held with timely notice and are open to thepublic; and whether drats o legislation, recordso legislative and administrative proceedings, andother kinds o oicial inormation are available tothe public.

Factor 6 concerns the air and eective enorcement

o administrative regulations. he Index does not9 Sub-actor 4.8 includes the our undamental principles recognized by the ILODeclaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work o 1998: (1) the reedomo association and the eective recognition o the right to collective bargaining; (2)the elimination o all orms o orced or compulsory labor; (3) the eective abolitiono child labor; and (4) the elimination o discrimination in respect o employmentand occupation.

10 Sub-actor 4.2 concerns police brutality and other abusesincluding arbitrarydetention, torture and extrajudicial executionperpetrated by agents o the stateagainst criminal suspects, political dissidents, members o the media, and ordinarypeople.

11 his includes the presumption o innocence, illegal detention, abusive treatment osuspects and detainees, access to legal counsel and translators, opportunity to challengeevidence, and prisoners rights.


20/158


14

hese systems oten play a large role in culturesin which ormal legal institutions ail to provideeective remedies or large segments o thepopulation.12

Measuring the rule o law he WJP Rule o Law Index is a irst attempt toquantiy systematically and comprehensively a seto rule o law outcomes by linking the conceptualdeinitions to concrete questions. hese questionsare then administered to a representative sample othe general public, and to local experts, and then areanalyzed and cross-checked pursuant to a rigoroustriangulation methodology. he outcome o thisexercise is one o the worlds most comprehensivedata sets regarding adherence to the rule o law in

practice.

Approachhe WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 measuresoutcomes rather than inputs. More speciically, ouraim is to provide a picture o where countries stand

with regard to a number o widely accepted outcomesthat rule o law societies seek to achieve, as opposedto measuring the institutional means, such as thelegal and regulatory rameworks, by which a given

society may seek to attain them. Some examples ooutcomes measured by the Index include respector undamental rights, absence o corruption, andaccess to justice. Examples o inputs might includethe number o courts, the number o police oicers,and the judicial budget.

Data he WJPs Rule o Law Index methodologyutilizes two main sources o new data: (i) a general

population poll (GPP), designed by he World Justice Project and conducted by leading localpolling companies using a representative sample o1,000 respondents in three cities per country; and(ii) a qualiied respondents questionnaire(QRQ)

12 Signiicant eort has been devoted during the last two years to collecting data oninormal justice in a dozen countries. Nonetheless, the complexities o these systemsand the diiculties o measuring their airness and eectiveness in a manner that isboth systematic and comparable across countries, make assessments extraordinarilychallenging. A preliminary overview o inormal justice will be included in the WJPRule of Law Index 2012.

Box 2: The WJP Rule of Law Indexmethodology in a nutshell

dt:WZ>/

d t:W

/

d/ / Quesionnaires were ranslae ino several languages d

d

W/

d

d/

d /

W

E

W

d & /

^ h : Z collaboraion wi e Inex eam, o assess e

&


21/158


15

Using the WJP Ruleo Law Index

he WJP Rule o Law Index is intended ormultiple audiences. It is designed to oer a reliableand independent data source or policy makers,

businesses, nongovernmental organizations, andother constituencies to:

Assess a nations adherence to the ruleo law in practice, as perceived andexperienced by the average person;

Identiy a nations strengths and weaknesses in comparison to similarlysituated countries; and

rack changes over time.

While other indices touch on various aspects o therule o law, the WJP Rule o Law Index has neweatures that set it apart:

Comprehensiveness. While existingindices cover aspects o the rule o law,they do not yield a ull picture o rule olaw compliance.

New data. he Indexindings are basedalmost entirely on new data collectedby the WJP rom independent sources.

his contrasts with indices based ondata aggregated rom third-party sources,or on sources that are sel-reported bygovernments or other interested parties.

Rule of law in practice. he Indexmeasures adherence to the rule o law bylooking not to the laws as written but tohow they are actually applied.

Anchored in actual experiences.heIndexcombines expert opinion withrigorous polling o the general publicto ensure that the indings relect theconditions experienced by the population,including marginalized sectors o society.

Action oriented. Findings are presentedin disaggregated orm, identiying areaso strength and weakness across the ninerule o law dimensions examined in eachcountry.

hese eatures make the Indexa powerul tool thatcan inorm policy debates in and across countries.However, the Indexs indings must be interpretedin light o certain inherent limitations.

1. he WJP Rule o Law Index does notprovide speciic recipes or identiypriorities or reorm.

consisting o closed ended questions completedby in-country practitioners and academics withexpertise in civil and commercial law, criminal

justice, labor law, and public health.

Box 3: Law in practice vs. law on books

/ / de jure) bu a ow(de factoht:WRuleof Law Index

he QRQ is administered on a yearly basis in each

surveyed country, and the GPP is carried out everythree years. In addition, some variables rom third-party sources have been incorporated into this

version o the Index, to capture certain structuralrule o law situations such as terrorist bombingsand battle-related deaths that may not be capturedthrough general population polls or expert opinion.Finally, existing domestic and international datasources and legal resources is used to cross-checkthe indings.

he Index comprises more than 400 dierent variables, organized into nine actors and 52 sub-actors. hese variables are aggregated and compiledinto numerical scores.

o date, over 2,000 experts rom 66 nations and jurisdictions have contributed their knowledge andexpertise to the Index.

In addition, over 66,000 individuals rom thesecountries have participated in the general population

poll. he countries indexed in this volume arepresented in able 1. Data presented in this volume was collected and analyzed in the second quartero 2011, with the exception o general populationdata or the initial 35 countries, which was collectedduring the all o 2009. A detailed description othe process by which data is collected and the ruleo law is measured is provided in the inal section othis report, and in Botero and Ponce (2011).


22/158


16

Table 1: Countries Indexed in 2011 Z />

Albania h

Argen in a > h

Ausralia W

Ausria tE

Banglaes ^ >

Belgium tE

B oli via > >

> h

Bulgaria hCamboia W >

Cameroon ^^ >

Canaa tE

Cile > h

Cina W >

Colombia > h

Cro a ia

Z

Z > h

^ > >

s on ia

^^ >

& tE

' tE

' ^^ >

' > >

Inonesia W >

Iran DE h

/ t E

Jamaica > h

: W

Joran D E >

D E h

> ^^ >

D W h

Mexico > h

Morocco D E >

Neerlans tE

New ealan W Nigeria ^^ >

E tE

Pakisan ^ >

Pe ru > h

W W >

Po lan

Z h

Z h

^ ^^ >

^ W

^ ^ h

^

d h

h DE

h ^^ >

h >

h h

Vienam W >

Source: he World Bank

2. he Indexdata is not intended to establishcausation or to ascertain the complexrelationship among dierent rule o lawdimensions in various countries.

3. he Indexs rankings and scores arethe product o a very rigorous datacollection and aggregation methodology.Nonetheless, as with all measures, they aresubject to measurement error.13

4. Indices and indicators are subject topotential abuse and misinterpretation.Once released to the public, they can takeon a lie o their own and be used orpurposes unanticipated by their creators.I data is taken out o context, it canlead to unintended or erroneous policydecisions.

5. Rule o law concepts measured by theIndex may have dierent meaningsacross countries. Users are encouragedto consult the speciic deinitions o the

variables employed in the construction othe Index, which are discussed in greaterdetail in Botero and Ponce (2011).

6. he Indexis generally intended to be usedin combination with other instruments,both quantitative and qualitat ive. Just as inthe areas o health or economics no singleindex conveys a ull picture o a countryssituation, policymaking in the area orule o law requires careul considerationo all relevant dimensionswhich may

vary rom country to countryand acombination o sources, instruments andmethods. he Index does not provide aull diagnosis or dictate concrete prioritiesor action.

7. Pursuant to the sensitivity analysis o theIndexdata conducted in collaboration withthe Econometrics and Applied StatisticsUnit o the European Commissions JointResearch Centre, conidence intervals havebeen calculated or all igures included inthe WJP Rule of Law Index 2011. heseconidence intervals and other relevantconsiderations regarding measurementerror are reported in Saisana and Saltelli(2010) and Botero and Ponce (2011).

13 Users o the Index or polic y debate who wish to have a sound understanding o itsmethodology are encouraged to review the ollowing papers:

a. Botero, J and Ponce, A. (2011) Measuring the Rule o Law. WJP Working PaperNo. 1, available online at: www.worldjusticeproject.org

b. Saisana, M and Saltelli, A. (2010) Statistical Audit o the WJP Rule o Law Index,available online at: www.worldjusticeproject.org


23/158


17

Complementarity withother WJP initiatives

he Indexsdevelopment is highly integrated withother dimensions o the WJP.

he Index indings or a growingnumber o countries will be presentedand discussed in detail at successive

World Justice Forums and WJP regionalconerences.

Many o the issues identiied by theIndex in various countries will becomeertile areas or the design o rule o lawprograms by Forum participants.

he results o various WJP programs willbe presented at each World Justice Forum,enabling a more detailed discussion oconcrete issues covered by the Index.

Detailed discussions o Index indingsat successive World Justice Forumsand regional outreach meetings will

generate useul inormation or urtherreinement o the Indexmethodology andmeasurement, as well as an opportunity todisseminate the results o both the Indexand WJP programs.

WJP scholars will provide conceptualand methodological advice or theimprovement and expansion o the Index,and the Indexs indings and data will bemade available to researchers around the

world.

Next stepshis volume presents the results and lessons learnedduring the WJPs implementation o the Index in66 countries in 2011. he Indexremains a work inprogress, with the next steps including:

Expanded coverage to include a total o100 countries by 2012.

Publication o topic-speciic reports andother comparative materials.


24/158


25/158

Part II: The Rule of LawAround 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.


26/158


27/158

Regional rends

21

Regional Highlights he ollowing section provides an overview oregional trends revealed by the WJP Rule of Law

Index 2011 report, which covers 66 countries.his section also presents highlights or a numbero countries in each o seven regions: WesternEurope and North America, Latin America andthe Caribbean, East Asia and Paciic, South Asia,Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Middle East andNorth Arica, and Sub-Saharan Arica. Adherenceto the rule o law varies widely around the worldand appears to be positively correlated with per

capita income. he average rankings or each regionare shown in able 2. he detailed rankings areshown in the data tables at the end o the report.Additional scores and rankings are available inBotero and Ponce [2011].

Western Europe andNorth America

Countries in Western Europe and North Americatend to outperorm most other countries in alldimensions. hese countries are characterizedby relatively low levels o corruption, open andaccountable governments, and eective criminal

justice systems. he greatest weakness in WesternEurope and North America appears to be related tothe accessibility o the civil justice system, especiallyor marginalized segments o the population. In thearea o access to legal counsel, or instance, Austria,Canada, the United States, and Norway rank 26th,22nd, 21st, and 20th, respectively. hese are areas thatrequire attention rom both policy makers and civilsociety to ensure that all people are able to beneitrom the civil justice system. While protection oundamental rights in this region is the highest inthe world, police discrimination against oreignersand ethnic minorities remains an issue in need oattention in most countries. In most dimensions,countries in Western Europe obtain higher scoresthan the United States.


28/158


22

o attorneys, accessibility and eiciency o courts,and lack o undue inluence. Police discriminationagainst oreigners, however, is perceived to occur.

Austria ranks among the top ten in sevendimensions o the rule o law. he country is rankedourth out o the ten Western European countries

covered by the Index in the ollowing dimensions:absence o corruption, order and security, respector undamental rights, and eectiveness o thecriminal justice system. Although the country is

very open, people in Austria ace more diiculties inaccessing oicial documentation than do individualsin most developed nations, including the UnitedStates, Germany, and France. In addition, policediscrimination against oreigners is perceived to besigniicant.

he United Kingdom is among the top ivecountries in the world in the areas o opengovernment and eective regulatory enorcement,ranking ourth and ith, respectively. It scores wellon government accountability (ranking seventh),and corruption is minimal. While the court systemis independent and ree o undue inluence, it is notas accessible and aordable as others in the region.

he correctional system underperorms its income-group and regional peers.

France perorms well in all eight dimensions othe rule o law. he countrys notable strengthsinclude absence o corruption and an independent,accessible, and aordable civil justice system.Nonetheless, judicial delays are a weakness in bothcivil and criminal justice, where cases can take

years to resolve. France also obtains high marks

he Nordic countries rank at the top in mostdimensions o the rule o law. Sweden ranks irstin three o eight areas -undamental rights, opengovernment, and regulatory enorcement- and islocated in the top ive in seven o the eight categories.Swedens administrative agencies and courts arerated among the most eective and transparent in

the world, and generally observe undamental rights.Norwayalso ranks irst in three areas -governmentaccountability, access to civil justice, and eectivecriminal justice- and it places no lower than ith inall but one o the rule o law indicators. Norwayspublic institutions are very strong. Access to justiceis generally guaranteed to citizens in both countries,although access to aordable legal counsel remainslimited, particularly or disadvantaged groups.Police discrimination against oreigners and ethnicminorities is perceived to be a problem in both

countries.

he Netherlands ranks among the top three in twocategories -open government and access to civil

justice- and perorms very well in most o the othersix dimensions measured by the Index. he overallregulatory environment is transparent and eicient.

he countrys courts are accessible and ree oimproper inluence, with criminal courts displayingan outstanding respect or due process o law, wherethey rank irst in the world.

Germany is one o the worlds leaders in manydimensions o the rule o law. Governmentaccountability is strong (ranking 5 th out o 66countries) and corruption is minimal (ranking 12 th).

he countrys civil justice system ranks 2nd out o allcountries, which is characterized by the aordability

Table 2: Average rankings by region

&^

^

as AsiaW

asernCenral

Asia

esernEAmerica

>

Caribbean

MileNor

^

>'W

K^

&Z

K'

Z

:

:

Source: WJP Rule of law Index 2011 database


29/158

Regional rends

23

independence and protection o undamental rights.

he United States obtains high marks in mostdimensions o the rule o law. he country standsout or its well-unctioning system o checks andbalances and or its good results in guaranteeingcivil liberties among its people, including the rights

o association, opinion and expression, religion, andpetition. he civil justice system is independent andree o undue inluence, but it remains inaccessibleto disadvantaged groups (ranking 21st). Legalassistance is expensive or unavailable (ranking 52nd),and the gap between rich and poor individuals interms o both actual use o and satisaction with thecivil courts system remains signiicant (see box 4).In addition, there is a general perception that ethnicminorities and oreigners receive unequal treatmentrom the police and the courts.

Canada is among the top ten countries in theworld in three categories o the rule o law: limitedgovernment powers; order and security; and opengovernment. Corruption is minimal and the countrygenerally observes undamental rights. However,discrimination against immigrants and the poorremains a source o concern (ranking 30th). Canadaslowest scores are in the area o access to civil justice where it ranks 16th out o the 23 high incomecountries indexed this year. his can be partially

explained by shortcomings in the aordability olegal advice and representation, and the lengthyduration o civil cases.

in the areas o eective regulatory enorcementand protection o undamental rights, even thoughpolice discrimination against ethnic and religiousminorities is perceived to be a problem.

Belgium obtains high marks in all eight categories.Belgium stands out or its high scores in government

accountability and protection o undamental rights,even though police discrimination against oreignersis perceived to be signiicant. he judicial systemis independent, accessible, and aordable, whichcontrasts with the relatively poor perormance oother high-income countries. However, judicialdelays in civil cases are a source o concern. In theareas o eective criminal justice and regulatoryenorcement, Belgium lags behind most regionaland income-group peers.

Spain obtains high marks in guaranteeingundamental rights, particularly in protecting laborrights and preventing intererence in its citizensprivacy, as well as in the areas o governmentaccountability, absence o corruption, access tolegal counsel, and respect or due process o law.However, Spain lags behind its regional andincome-group peers in providing mechanisms orpublic participation - including the right to petitionpublic authorities - and in eectively enorcinggovernment regulations (ranking 21st). Judicial

delays, ineective enorcement o civil justice,and police discrimination are also areas in need oattention.

Italyis the weakest perormer in the Western Europeand North America region countries measured bythe Index, although there are signiicant variationsacross the three cities polled (Rome, Milan, andNaples).Out o 12 countries covered in the region,Italy ranks 12th in seven o the eight rule o lawdimensions. Corruption within the judiciary and

impunity o government oicials - where thecountry ranks 22nd and 23rd, respectively - bothconstitute signiicant institutional weaknesses. Italyranks last among high-income countries in the areaso open government, order and security, and accessto civil justice. Lack o government accountability,delays in administrative and judicial decisions, policediscrimination against oreigners, and deicient legalsecurity, are also sources o concern. On the otherhand, Italy earns high marks in the areas o judicial


30/158


24

Box 4: Equal Access to Justice

t : W t

In numerous counries, owever, access o jusice d /

d ' h ^

t ' d h^t ' d

h


31/158

Regional rends

25

score is in the area o order and security, whereit ranks 52nd among all indexed countries. Policeabuses and harsh conditions o correctional acilitiesare also problematic.

Argentina places low in the rankings in severaldimensions. Government accountability is weak,partly because o the poor perormance o governmentagencies in investigating allegations o misconduct,as well as political intererence in law enorcementagencies and the judiciary. Regulatory agencies areperceived as ineective (ranking 57 th globally, andsecond to last in the region) and complaints takea long time to get resolved (ranking 60th out o 66countries). Another weakness is the high incidence

o crime. According to the general population poll,18 percent o respondents in Buenos Aires, Cordoba,and Rosario reported having experienced a burglaryin the past three years. Out o those incidents, only4 percent o the perpetrators were punished. On thepositive side, the court system, although slow andnot ully independent, is accessible. In this regard,people in Argentina have better access to legalcounsel in civil disputes than do individuals in somedeveloped countries such as Canada and the UnitedStates.

Peru scores highly with regard to checks onexecutive power, as well as in protection oundamental rights, including reedom o thoughtand religion and reedom o opinion and expression.Government agencies are transparent, although notas eective as in other middle-income countr ies. Onthe other hand, the civil justice system is perceivedas slow, expensive, and inaccessible, particularly or

Latin America andthe CaribbeanLatin America presents a picture o sharp contrasts.In spite o recent movements towards opennessand political reedoms that have positioned many

countries at the oreront in protecting basic rightsand liberties, the regions public institutions remainragile. Corruption and a lack o governmentaccountability are still prevalent. Accordingly,the perception o impunity remains widespread.In Argentina and Mexico, or instance, only 15percent o the people believe that institutions willact eectively in cases o corruption. Furthermore,public institutions in Latin America are not aseicient as those o countries in other regions, andpolice orces struggle to provide protection rom

crime or to punish perpetrators o abuses. Nowadays,Latin American countries show the highest crimerates in the world (See igure 4) and the criminalinvestigation and adjudication systems rank amongthe worst in the world.

Chile leads the region in all dimensions o the ruleo law, and is positioned in the top 20 out o all66 countries in ive categories. he government isaccountable and courts are transparent and eicient.

While Chiles crime rates are relatively high incomparison to other middle-income countries, thecriminal justice system is eective and generallyadheres to due process. Areas in need o attentioninclude police discrimination against oreigners andethnic minorities, harsh conditions in correctionalacilities, and criminal recidivism.

Brazil ollows Chile as the second-best perormerin the region and positions itsel as the country withthe highest marks among the BRIC economies. hecountry enjoys a air system o checks and balances,although a perceived culture o impunity among

government oicials raises some cause or concern.Fundamental rights are generally respected, ranking4th among the 19 upper-middle income countriesand 3rd among the 12 countries in Latin America.Regulatory agencies are perceived as relativelyindependent, but ineicient. he civil justice systemis accessible (ranking 25th globally and secondin Latin America), although court decisions arediicult to enorce (ranking 54th). Brazils lowest

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

Rest

oft

heWorld

ElSalva

dor

Colo

mbi

a

Peru

Mexico

Jamaic

a

Arge

nna

Vene

zuela

Chile

Brazil

Boliv

ia

Guatem

ala

Figure 4: Conviction rates in Latin America



32/158


26

(ranking 27th). However, it is the worst perormerin the world in accountability and eective checkson executive power. Corruption appears to be

widespread (ranking 54th), crime and violence arecommon (ranking 64th), government institutions arenon-transparent, and the criminal justice system isineective and subject to political inluence (ranking

66th). he country also displays serious laws inguaranteeing respect or undamental rights, inparticular, reedom o opinion and expression, andthe right to privacy. On the other hand, while theproperty rights o companies are generally weak, theproperty rights o ordinary people appear to receivesigniicantly better protection.

El Salvador and Guatemala all into the middleo the global rankings in most categories, with ElSalvador generally outperorming Guatemala. he

area o eective regulatory enorcement is one oEl Salvadors strengths (ranking 2nd among lower-middle income countries and 28 th globally). hecountrys worst perormances are in the areas ocriminal justice (ranking 54th globally), and opengovernment (ranking 10th in the region). Civil courtsare generally accessible, but slow, and corruption inthe judicial system is a serious cause or concern.Police abuses and harsh conditions o correctionalacilities are also signiicant problems.

Guatemala also presents weaknesses in access to justice, which could be attributed to, among otheractors, lack o inormation, language barriersor disadvantaged groups, lengthy processes, andcorruption. Labor rights are weak, and crime is a veryserious problem (ranking 63rd out o 66 countries).

While government accountability is weak (ranking52nd globally), Guatemala perorms well on reedomo religion and eective protection o the right topetition the government when compared with itsincome-group peers.

Mexicos perormance is mixed. he countrypossesses a long constitutional tradition, strongprotections or ree speech and reedom o religion,and an independent judiciary. Mexico also perormsrelatively well on measures o openness (ranking27th globally, and 4th within the region), as well ason eectiveness o its administrative and regulatoryagencies (ranking 35th). On the other hand,corruption is a serious problem in all branches o

disadvantaged groups. Another weakness is criminal justiceranking 36th out o the 66 countriesindexed which can be explained by corruptionand deiciencies in the criminal investigation andadjudication systems.

Colombia is a country o sharp contrasts, scoring

very high in some dimensions and very low inothers. It stands out as one o the most opencountries in Latin America, ranking second highestamong middle-income countries and 18th in theglobal rankings in the area o open government.People in Colombia enjoy better access to oicialinormation and higher degrees o participation inthe administration o the laws than individuals inmost other countries. Colombia also scores well inother rule o law areas, including eective regulatoryenorcement (ranking 2nd in Latin America) and

in government accountability. he judicial systemis independent and ree o undue inluence, and itis one o the most accessible and aordable in theregion. However, it is aected by delays and lacko eectiveness in the investigation and prosecutiono crimes. Colombias worst perormance is in thearea o order and security (ranking 62nd out o 66countries indexed), which is partly attributed tohigh crime rates and the presence o powerulcriminal organizations. Police abuses, violations ohuman rights, and poor conditions o correctional

acilities are also signiicant problems. Civil conlictremains a challenge (ranking 59 th).

Bolivia aces challenges in terms o transparencyand accountability o public institutions, relectinga climate characterized by impunity, corruption, andpolitical intererence in law enorcement agencies,the legislature, and the judiciary. he judicial systemis ineicient and aected by corruption. Concernsalso remain about discrimination and restrictionsin the reedom o opinion and expression (both

ranking 11th

out o 12 in the region). Property rightsare weak, and police abuses remain a signiicantproblem. On the other hand, Bolivia obtains highmarks in the areas o open government (ranking 5 th

among income-group peers), and aordability olegal services.

Venezuela ranks relatively well in terms o religiousreedom (ranking 15th), accessibility o the civilcourts (ranking 21st), and protection o labor rights


33/158

Regional rends

27

as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, andSouth Korea, and the jurisdiction o Hong KongSAR, score high in most dimensions. In contrast,Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and

hailand generally rank signiicantly lower thanthe wealthier countries in the region; however, theyperorm relatively well in comparison to countries

rom other regions o the world with similar incomelevels.

New Zealand stands out as the best perormer inthe region. he country ranks irst in absence ocorruption and is positioned in the top ive in the

world in seven o the eight categories o the Index.Government agencies and courts in the countryare eicient, transparent, and ree o corruption.Fundamental rights are strongly protected. he

judicial system is accessible, independent, ree

o corruption and eective. However, it is alsoperceived to be slow relative to other high incomecountries, ranking 18th in this area.

Australia ranks among the top ten globally in sixo the eight categories measured by the Index. hecivil courts are eicient and independent, althoughaccess to translators and aordable legal counselremains limited, particularly or disadvantagedgroups. In this area, Australia scores lower thanalmost all high-income countries. Another area o

concern is discrimination. While the country ranksamong the best in the world in protecting mostundamental rights, it lags behind in guaranteeingequal treatment and non-discrimination, especiallyor immigrants and ethnic minorities. In thisarea, Australia ranks last among all high-incomecountries and ranks 40th globally.

Japan is one o the highest-ranking countries inthe East Asia and Paciic region. he countrysinstitutions and courts rank among the best in

the world. Japan places 2nd

in the region and 4th

globally or the eectiveness and transparency oits regulatory agencies. Security is high (ranking4th in the world) and the criminal justice system iseective (ranking 11th), although concerns remainregarding due process violations. Japans lowestscore is in the area o accessibility and aordabilityo civil procedures, mainly because o high litigationcosts. he high costs imposed by courts and lawyers,or instance, place Japan 44 th out o 66 countries

government (ranking 53rd), and Mexicos policeorces continue to struggle to guarantee the securityo its citizens against crime and violence (ranking55th). he criminal justice system is deicient ranking 63rd out o 66 countries indexed mainlybecause o weaknesses in the criminal investigationand adjudication systems, prevalent discrimination

against vulnerable groups, corruption among judges and law enorcement oicials, and seriousviolations o the due process o law and r ights o theaccused, where it ranks 64th. Failures to prosecutegovernment oicials who commit violations andcorrupt acts also remain a cause o concern in thecountry (ranking 59th).

Jamaica and the Dominican Republic occupymid-range positions in most areas within theregional rankings. Jamaica perorms strongly in

guaranteeing reedom o religion and reedom oprivacy, although police abuses and harsh conditionsin correctional acilities remain a source o concern.

he judicial system is independent and relativelyree o corruption, but it is also slow and ineective.

he countrys main weaknesses lie in the areas osecurity and open government, wherein the countryranks last among lower-middle income countries.Vigilante justice and organized crime are areas inneed o attention.

Dominican Republic enjoys a relatively eicientcivil court system. According to the generalpopulation poll, 64 percent o people who went tocourt or a debt collection had the conlict resolvedin less than a year. his igure is much higher thanthe average igure or Argentina (24%), Mexico(37%), and even Spain (30%), where processestake longer. However, accessibility o legal aid andgovernment intererence with the judiciary are areasthat still require attention. Crime and vigilante

justice, lack o accountability or misconduct o

government oicers, corruption o the securityorces, and violations o human rights, are alsoamong the Dominican Republics weaknesses.

East Asia and Paciic he East Asia and Paciic region displays aheterogeneous picture. Wealthier countries such


34/158


28

government intererence. In spite o these eatures,the country still lags behind others in the region inguaranteeing undamental rights and reedoms toits people (ranking 21st).

China does well among lower-middle incomecountries in most categories, and is the second-

best perormer among the BRIC economies.China has seen major improvements in thequality, eectiveness, and accountability o itslegal institutions. Security is high (ranking 23rd),and the criminal justice system ranks 2nd amongits income peers. Enorcement o regulations isrelatively ineective (ranking 37th globally and 6th

among lower-middle income countries). he civilcourt system is relatively accessible and speedy,but judicial independence remains an area wheremore progress is needed. Indicators o undamental

rights are weak, including labor rights (ranking 61 stout o 66), reedom o assembly (ranking 66 th), andreedom o speech (ranking 66th).

Indonesia is in the top hal o the rankingsamong lower-middle income countries in mostdimensions. Compared with other countries inthe region, the countrys main strengths are in theareas o reedom o opinion (ranking 23 rd globally),and open government (ranking 29th in the worldand 3rd among income-group peers). Indonesians

experience barriers to access oicial inormation,yet they enjoy higher degrees o participation in theadministration o the laws than individuals in otherEast Asia and Paciic region countries. Indonesiaaces challenges in the unctioning o governmentagencies and courts. Corruption in Indonesia ispervasive, ranking second to last in the regionand 47th globally. he courts are perceived to beindependent o government control, but aected by

in terms o accessibility and aordability o civilprocedures.

South Korea shows a strong and airly even pictureacross most o the areas measured by the Index.Administrative agencies are transparent, ree ocorruption, and relatively eective. Nonetheless,

the country exhibits weaknesses in the area ogovernment accountability ranking second tolast among high-income countries and 30 th outo the 66 countries indexed. his low mark partlyrelects political intererence within the legislatureand the judiciary, as well as deicient checks on thegovernments power. While undamental rights arestrongly protected, South Korea also lags behindother advanced countries in guaranteeing reedomo association and reedom o expression, ranking28th and 38th respectively.

Singapore eatures prominently among the indexedcountries in providing security to its citizens(ranking 2nd), and places in the top 10 in two othercategories. he public administration o the countryis eective and corruption is minimal (ranking 3rd).

he criminal justice system is among the mosteective in the world (ranking 5 th). Notwithstandingthe countrys outstanding perormance in mostcategories, there are substantial limitations onreedom o speech and reedom o assembly, with

Singapore in 50th

and 61st

place, respectively, out oall 66 countries.

Hong Kong SAR, China eatures in the topive in three categories. he country places 1 st

in guaranteeing order and security and 2nd orthe eectiveness o its criminal justice system.Administrative agencies and courts are eicientand ree o corruption, although not entirely ree o

Table 3: Rule of law in Brazil, China, India, and Russia

&>

'Powers

&

&Orer an^

&&

Z

&K

'

&Z

&Access o

Civil Jusice

&CriminalJusice

Cina

Inia

Z

Source: WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database


35/158

Regional rends

29

are shortcomings in the ield o undamental rights(ranking 40th), particularly in regard to violationsagainst the right to lie and security o the person(ranking 57th); police abuses; due process violations;and harsh conditions in correctional acilities; as

well as deiciencies in the electoral process. hecivil court system also obtains poor scores (ranking

12th out o 13 in the region and 56 th globally),attributable to deicient enorcement mechanisms,corruption among judges and law enorcementoicers, and the lengthy duration o cases. heseactors may explain why ew people use the courtsystem to solve disputes. According to a generalpopulation poll o 1,000 people in Manila, Davao,and Cebu, only 5 percent o the people who had adebt collection dispute went to court. Out o thosepeople, nobody had the conlict resolved in less thana year.

Vietnam also presents a mixed picture, alling in themiddle o the rankings on most categories. Vietnamsorder and security levels are high by regional andincome group standards (ranking 22nd globally).Despite ongoing reorms, regulatory agencies andcourts are not eicient, and corruption exists. Otherareas where particular attention should be ocusedinclude judicial independence, and protection oundamental rights - particularly regarding reedomo speech - an area where the country ranks 63rd.

Vietnam also receives low marks in the eectiveenorcement o civil justice and access to publicinormation.

Cambodia is ranked much lower than most othercountries in the region on all dimensions. heoverall legal and institutional environment remainsquite weak, which is highlighted by the low scores inkey areas, including eective limits on governmentpowers (ranking 65th out o 66); regulatoryenorcement; access to civil justice; and absence

o corruption, where the country ranks last in theworld. Property rights are very weak (ranking 66th),and police abuses remain a signiicant problem. Onthe positive side, Cambodia displays lower crimerates than most countries in the lower-middleincome group.

South Asia

powerul private interests and corruption. he civil justice system remains underdeveloped (ranking41st), attributable in part to the lack o aordablelegal services, deicient enorcement mechanisms,and the lengthy duration o cases. Police abuses andharsh conditions in correctional acilities are alsosigniicant problems.

Compared with other lower middle-incomecountries, hailand perorms relatively well,obtaining high marks on absence o crime (ranking20th globally), and eectiveness o the criminal

justice system (ranking 24th). However, some areasrequire urther attention. Civil conlict and political

violence remain signiicant problems (ranking 64th).Corruption is a challenge, particularly within thepolice. he hai civil justice system is characterizedby government inluence and lengthy duration

o cases. Access to oicial inormation is limited(ranking 62nd).

As with many other countries in the region,Malaysia presents a contrasting view. Compared

with other upper-middle income countries,Malaysias government is relatively accountable,although corruption, political intererence, andimpunity still exist. he eiciency and transparencyo government agencies can stil l improve, and eortsshould also be made in the area o access to justice

(ranking 44th

globally, and 14th

in the upper-middleincome group). he country is sae, ranking 1 st

among 19 income peers and on a par with countriessuch as France and Belgium. However, abuses bythe police still occur. O particular concern is thesituation posed by violations o undamental rights,

where Malaysia ranks 59th out o 66 countries.

he Philippines perorms well relative to lower-middle income countries on most dimensions,although it still requires urther eorts in many

areas. he country stands out or having reasonablyeective checks and balances on the governmentspower (ranking 3rd out o 16 income-group peers),including a vibrant civil society, a ree media, andan independent judiciary. he Philippines alsooutperorms most lower-middle income countriesin the area o eective regulatory enorcement,ranking 4th out o 16 countries. Nonetheless, civilconlict and political violence remain signiicantchallenges (ranking 56th). O particular concern


36/158


30

conlict, and political violence - is also a source oconcern.

Bangladesh aces multiple challenges tostrengthening the rule o law. Governmentaccountability remains low (ranking 47th globally,and 3rd among low-income countries), andadministrative agencies and courts are extremelyineicient and corrupt. he civil justice system

shares many o the same problems as other countriesin the region, particularly with regard to the lengthyduration o cases and corruptive practices in lowerlevel courts where it ranks 62nd overall, and thirdto last among low-income countries. Human rights

violations and police abuses are also a signiicantproblem; however, unlike other countries in theregion, Bangladesh is perceived as relatively saerom crime (ranking 13th globally), although mob

justice is a persistent problem. Another relative

he WJP Rule of Law Index covers only threecountries in this region in 2011: Bangladesh, India,and Pakistan.

India enjoys strong protections o ree speech(ranking 24th out o 66), an independent judiciary(ranking 25th), a unctioning system o checks andbalances, and a relatively open government (ranking1st among 16 lower-middle income countries

and 25th

globally). However, the unsatisactoryperormance o public administrative bodies has anegative impact on the rule o law. he civil courtsystem ranks poorly (48th out o 66) mainly becauseo deiciencies in access to justice, particularly in theareas o court congestion, enorcement, and delaysin processing cases, where the country ranks thirdto last. Corruption remains signiicant (ranking51st), and police discrimination and abuses are notunusual. Order and security - including crime, civil

Box 5: Equal protection of the law

h Z /

/

d WJP Rule of Law Index ' W W

Turkey

Colo

mbi

aPe

ru

Mexico

Germ

any

Italy

Unite

dSt

ates

Brazil

Leba

non

Unite

dKi

ngdo

m

Arge

nna

Fran

ce

Spain

Norw

ay

Russia

Chile

Kazakh

stan

Cana

da

Neth

erlan

ds

CzechRe

public

Romania

Hig income

Low income

20%

10%

0%

South

Afric

a

Figure 5: Differences in police abuse



37/158

Regional rends

31

cases (ranking 50th), and diiculties enorcing courtdecisions (ranking 53rd).

Czech Republic trails closely behind Poland inmost dimensions. he country has a relatively strongsystem o checks and balances (ranking 21st) andits administrative agencies are relatively eective

(ranking 26th). Courts are independent, but very slow(ranking 58th). Other areas in need o attention arecorruption among administrative oicers (ranking34th), and lack o eective sanctions or misconduct(ranking 33rd). Crime rates are also high comparedto other high-income countries.

Croatia and Romania all in the middle o therankings in most categories. Despite recent progress,Croatias institutions still lag behind those o otherhigh-income countries. Its public administrative

bodies, or example, are ineicient and the judicialsystem, while generally accessible, is still slow andsubject to political inluence and corruption. hecountry is sae rom crime (ranking 6 th), but urther

work is needed in terms o openness (ranking 33rd)and equal treatment o ethnic minorities.

Romania shows a mixed perormance across theeight dimensions, with high marks in the areas osecurity and respect or undamental rights (ranking2nd among 19 upper-middle income countries in

both areas), and in criminal justice (ranking 3rd

among income peers and 28th globally). However,the country scores low in terms o the unctioning oadministrative bodies and eiciency o the judiciary.Eective enorcement o regulations is very weak(ranking 63rd), accountability or misconduct ogovernment oicers is deicient (ranking 53rd), andcorruption persists. Harsh treatment o prisonersand detainees is an area o concern.

Bulgaria places in the bottom hal o the upper-

Documents

The World Justice Project - Rule of Law Index 2011