UN Rights Chief Decries Global Erosion of Rule of Law

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has issued a grave warning about the accelerating decline of the rule of law across the world. Speaking at a recent forum, the UN rights chief cautioned that the “glorification of violence” and systematic weakening of institutions are undermining international legal norms, democratic principles, and human rights protections.

The Warning

The High Commissioner’s remarks were not abstract theorizing but a reflection of visible, real-time threats to the global legal order. He noted that when leaders normalize violent rhetoric, weaken independent courts, or manipulate legal institutions for political gain, they set precedents that corrode the very foundations of governance.

At the heart of this warning lies a simple truth: the rule of law is only as strong as the willingness of states to uphold it. When accountability is absent, impunity flourishes—allowing corruption, authoritarianism, and human rights abuses to thrive.

Key Concerns Raised

1. Glorification of Violence

Violence—once universally condemned in political and civic discourse—is now increasingly celebrated in some parts of the world. Politicians and public figures glorify aggression as “strength,” framing dissent or peaceful protest as threats rather than democratic participation.

• Hate speech targeting minorities has escalated globally, often inciting communal or ethnic violence.
• Political violence, including attacks on opposition leaders and journalists, is no longer rare.
• Militarization of language—where leaders speak of citizens as “enemies” or of opponents as “traitors”—has seeped into governance.

Such glorification creates a permissive environment where violence is not just tolerated but valorized.

2. Undermining of Institutions

Independent institutions are the backbone of democratic governance. Courts, electoral commissions, and watchdog agencies act as guardrails to keep executive power in check. Yet, these very institutions are being systematically attacked.

• Judicial Interference: Governments in some regions are appointing loyalists to top courts, diluting their independence.
• Media Suppression: Journalists are silenced through restrictive laws, defamation suits, or even violence.
• Civil Society Restrictions: NGOs face funding cuts, surveillance, and arbitrary shutdowns, weakening civic oversight.

When institutions lose credibility, citizens lose trust. Without trust, even well-crafted laws become hollow.

3. International Legal Norms Under Strain

The international legal framework—built painstakingly over decades—rests on treaties, conventions, and customary law. But its effectiveness depends on respect and compliance. Increasingly, states are willing to defy these obligations:

• Withdrawal from treaties: Some governments have pulled out of key conventions or ignored rulings from international courts.
• Selective application of law: Countries uphold treaties when it benefits them but reject them when politically inconvenient.
• Humanitarian law violations: Civilian protection under the Geneva Conventions is routinely flouted in conflicts, from Syria to Sudan.

This erosion threatens the very legitimacy of international law, which is meant to be universal.

Real-World Examples

The UN’s concerns are not theoretical—they are already unfolding:

• Eastern Europe: Efforts to curtail the powers of constitutional courts have sparked massive protests, raising fears of “democratic backsliding.”
• Latin America: Allegations of executive overreach in countries like El Salvador and Venezuela show how quickly checks and balances can unravel.
• Conflict Zones: In Yemen, Sudan, and Gaza, violations of humanitarian law—including targeting of civilians—show the limits of international enforcement.
• Migration Rights: Pushbacks of refugees in Europe and Asia contravene the Refugee Convention, with states citing “national security” to justify illegal practices.

These instances reflect a broader pattern: the weakening of global consensus around rights and accountability.

Broader Implications

The decline of the rule of law has consequences that extend beyond the legal sphere:

• Political Instability: Without functioning legal systems, disputes spill into violence and unrest.
• Economic Uncertainty: Investors hesitate to enter markets where contracts cannot be enforced reliably.
• Erosion of Trust: Citizens lose faith in governance, fostering cynicism and populist uprisings.
• Weakening of Multilateralism: If states no longer respect international rules, institutions like the UN, WTO, or ICC risk irrelevance.

The rights chief stressed that once these norms collapse, rebuilding them is extremely difficult. History—from pre-World War II Europe to apartheid South Africa—demonstrates how the erosion of law paves the way for authoritarianism.

India’s Position in the Global Context

India, the world’s largest democracy, sits at a crossroads in this global debate. While its constitutional framework is robust, recent developments have sparked conversations about whether institutional checks and balances are being adequately protected.

• Judicial Independence: The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly asserted its role as the guardian of constitutional rights, striking down arbitrary executive actions. Yet, debates persist over judicial appointments, with concerns about government influence in the collegium system and delays in filling vacancies.
• Freedom of Expression: Cases involving sedition, the use of anti-terror laws (like UAPA), and internet shutdowns have raised questions about the balance between national security and individual liberties. International observers, including the UN, have flagged restrictions on free speech and media freedoms as potential risks.
• Civil Society and NGOs: Several NGOs have faced challenges under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), limiting their ability to function. While the government cites transparency, critics argue it weakens democratic participation.
• Minority Rights: Debates around citizenship laws, communal violence, and protection of minority communities reflect ongoing challenges in ensuring inclusive governance.

On the positive side, India continues to demonstrate a functioning judiciary that can act as a bulwark against overreach. Landmark rulings on privacy, LGBTQ+ rights, and gender equality highlight resilience within the legal system. However, the UN chief’s warning resonates strongly: unless institutions are safeguarded from political polarization, even established democracies can face democratic backsliding.

Key Recent Supreme Court Judgments (2023–2025)

1. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2023 Review Extension)
   The Court reaffirmed its earlier stance on internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir, insisting that restrictions must be proportionate, necessary, and subject to periodic review. This ruling reinforced the constitutional right to free expression in the digital age.
2. Same-Sex Marriage Case (2023–24)
   While the Supreme Court declined to legalize same-sex marriages, it strongly affirmed LGBTQ+ rights, recognizing the government’s duty to protect queer couples from discrimination. The ruling was a partial victory but highlighted the Court’s balancing act between progressive rights and legislative limits.
3. Electoral Bonds Case (2024)
   In a landmark judgment, the Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme, citing its opacity and potential to undermine free and fair elections. This decision bolstered transparency and accountability in political funding.
4. Sedition Law Proceedings (2024)
   The Court directed the Union government to reconsider and amend the colonial-era sedition law (Section 124A IPC), emphasizing that dissent cannot be criminalized. This was a crucial step in protecting freedom of speech.
5. Privacy and Surveillance Cases (2024–25)
   Building on the Puttaswamy (2017) right-to-privacy judgment, the Court has taken up multiple challenges to government surveillance mechanisms. The pending cases could redefine the balance between state security and individual liberty in the digital era.

These rulings reflect both the strength and fragility of Indian democracy—showing how the judiciary can act as a safeguard, but also how pressures from executive power continue to test its independence.

Way Forward

Despite the bleak picture, the UN official emphasized that solutions remain possible if states and civil society act decisively:

• Strengthening Institutions: Safeguards for judicial independence, transparent elections, and free media must be prioritized.
• Accountability Mechanisms: International bodies like the ICC must be empowered, not undermined, to investigate violations.
• Civil Society Empowerment: Protecting activists, journalists, and NGOs is essential for oversight and accountability.
• Renewing Multilateralism: In an age of rising nationalism, recommitting to global treaties and cooperation is vital for stability.

These steps require both political will and civic engagement. Citizens, too, play a role in holding their leaders accountable.

Conclusion

The UN High Commissioner’s remarks serve as a wake-up call. The erosion of the rule of law is not a distant possibility but a present reality unfolding across regions. India’s Supreme Court judgments illustrate both progress and challenges—demonstrating that strong institutions can still safeguard rights, but only if consistently defended. Unless urgent, collective action is taken—nationally and internationally—the world risks sliding into a dangerous era where power, rather than law, dictates justice.