ABA, IBA host International Rule of Law Symposium in Chicago

Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Lord Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General of the United Kingdom, presented powerful keynote addresses on September 16 to open the International Rule of Law Symposium in Chicago.

Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland

Robinson noted that many people question whether the rule of law can help to meet the threats of terrorism, mass migration, increased poverty, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, global climate change, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, human trafficking, and all the other world-wide threats we are facing. Her answer: "It is precisely these dangers, and the changing, more interconnected world we live in, that make strengthening respect for the rule of law so important. Why? Because without the rule of law, government officials are not bound by agreed standards of conduct. Without the rule of law, the dignity and equality of all people is not affirmed, and their ability to seek redress for grievances and fulfillment of societal commitments is limited. Without the rule of law, we have no way to ensure meaningful participation by people in formulating and enacting the norms and standards which organize society." She went on to focus on terrorism, and the problem of the effects of the misuse of language in that struggle, leading to an emphasis on order and security instead of democracy and human rights.

Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General of the United Kingdom

Goldsmith spoke on a similar theme, saying that "Maintaining a commitment to the rule of law is a key element in winning the war of values and thus in defeating the forces of extremism, of chaos and of terror." He noted that one principle behind this commitment is that "we should maintain our commitment to fundamental values and freedoms." He continued, "I cannot believe that it would be right to give up these fundamental values on which our societies are based in our struggle to meet the challenge of terrorism. These shared freedoms and values represent our democratic way of life. These are liberties which were hard won over the centuries. They are the very liberties the terrorists would destroy. We cannot give the terrorists the victory they seek by the way we seek to combat their evil."

The rule of law and an independent judiciary

What are some of the indicators that a country has an independent judiciary? Are low salaries for the judiciary likely to lead to corruption? And whose responsibility is it to protect judges when their independence is being infringed upon?

These are some of the questions posed at a program later in the day during the Rule of Law Symposium. Departing ABA Executive Director Bob Stein moderated the panel, which featured judges from a wide variety of locales – Judge Patricia Wald, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and former judge, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; Judge Carolyn Engel Temin, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania; Judge James A. Wynn Jr., North Carolina Court of Appeals; Justice Anderson Zikonda, High Court of Zambia; and Justice Richard Goldstone, past Justice of the South African Constitutional Court and former prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Getting the discussion started, Stein presented a two-part definition of judicial independence, which includes not only institutional independence, as a branch separate from other parts of the government, but also decisional independence for each member of the judiciary. He then opened to members of the panel the question: What are indicators of an independent judiciary? Zikonda pointed out the need for a judiciary to be working within a "certain legal framework" such as a constitution, and that a judiciary must be financially independent. Wald added that independence means judges need to be independent from retaliation, that the institutional norms of the judiciary need to be reinforced by the other branches of the government, and that individual judges needed to be "independent from themselves," which she explained means that the judge's personal experiences and natural biases must not be part of how he or she rules in his or her capacity as a judge.

Two of the members of the panel – Wynn and Temin – are elected judges, and Stein asked whether there is a difference between elected and appointed judges in terms of their independence. Wynn said there is not, since an appointed judge serves an "electorate of one." What is needed, Wynn continued, is that there be a sense of accountability and transparency in the judicial system. Temin shared a timely account from her state of Pennsylvania. State judges run for a 10-year term and then face the voters not against another candidate but in a yes or no vote for continuing to serve in that capacity. Recently one judge failed in his retention vote, not for anything that he did, said Temin, but because of the public outcry against the legislature raising salaries for the legislative and judicial branches.

The judicial branch is the least understood and is also limited in its opportunities to speak out, said Temin. Stein followed up on that point by asking, "Whose responsibility is it to protect judges?" Goldstone said that it wasn't the responsibility of the judges themselves, echoing the comment that Temin raised about the judges having limited opportunity to do so, and said that it was the responsibility of an open media as well as the academic community. And "certainly" the bar associations have a role in protecting judges, said Goldstone.

The need for a "perception of independence" was pointed out early in the program by Goldstone. And nearing the end of the session – in response to one of the many questions asked by audience – Wynn stated emphatically that where you have an independent judiciary, there is place to take a dispute. If you don't like the outcome, you still respect it and move on. However, in places where an independent judiciary is lacking, if you don't like the decision and don't believe in the process, you "take to the streets."

This symposium, sponsored by the ABA and the International Bar Association, was the second in a series that began in Washington, D.C., last November and will continue in Bangkok, Thailand, next February, and at the United Nations in April.  The symposia bring together leaders from government, business, non-governmental organizations and academia to pursue a focused agenda to advance the rule of law globally.

Back to top