A democracy can have an excellent constitution, independent courts and extensive legal protections, yet still fail to deliver justice in everyday life

 A growing gap between formal legal rights and their practical application places democratic legal systems under pressure. Equality before the law, judicial independence and access to legal protection may remain formally recognized while being applied inconsistently or unequally[1]. A rule of law that exists primarily on paper cannot reliably provide legal certainty, constrain government power or correct injustice.

The practical rule of law can be examined from the position of a rights-holder[2]: can a person recognize a legal problem, obtain understandable assistance, reach a competent institution, present relevant evidence, receive a timely and reasoned decision, and obtain an implemented remedy? A failure at any point may make the formal right unusable. Effective legal protection therefore depends on the whole pathway rather than on courts alone[3].

This gap is reinforced by selective enforcement, unequal access to legal assistance, political pressure on courts and the increasing complexity of law. Citizens differ considerably in their financial resources, legal knowledge and ability to navigate institutions. Administrative agencies may also face capacity shortages, rigid procedures and broad discretionary powers, producing inconsistent decisions and insufficient attention to individual circumstances. Limited transparency and poor communication further prevent people from understanding or exercising their rights.

These problems reduce trust and create perceptions of arbitrariness. When comparable cases receive different treatment or effective legal protection depends on wealth and expertise, formally universal rules generate unequal results[4]. Government decisions then lose legitimacy because they are no longer experienced as fair, predictable or contestable. Most importantly, the legal system loses its capacity to identify and repair abuses of power.

A right is effective only when the enforcement chain works as a whole: legal awareness, accessible advice, affordable procedure, timely fact-finding, impartial decision, comprehensible reasons, interim protection where needed, appeal or review, and implementation of the remedy[5]. Failure at one stage can nullify formal protection at all later stages.

Equal access to justice is therefore fundamental. Affordable legal aid, accessible advice centers and suitable alternatives to formal litigation can prevent legal protection from becoming dependent on socioeconomic position[6]. Procedures should be simplified, accelerated and communicated in clear language, supported by digital tools where appropriate. Simplification must preserve legal precision and procedural safeguards, but complexity should never make rights practically unusable. Digital tools may simplify routine access but should not become the exclusive gateway to legal protection. Institutions must preserve accessible human assistance, reasonable offline routes, accommodations for disability and language, and procedures for correcting data or identity errors[7]. Efficiency gains should be assessed against the risk of shifting administrative burden onto the claimant[8].

Judicial independence is equally essential[9]. Courts can protect rights and restrain political power only when judges remain free from improper political, economic and social influence. Safeguards should protect them against arbitrary dismissal, disciplinary pressure and interference in individual cases. Judicial appointment systems differ legitimately across constitutional traditions. Whatever the model, selection criteria, procedures, tenure safeguards, conflicts of interest, disciplinary rules, and reasons for appointment should protect competence and independence and prevent one political actor from obtaining unchecked control over the judiciary[10]. Public officials should be free to criticize judgments substantively but should not systematically delegitimize the judiciary itself.

Judicial independence must nevertheless coexist with accountability. Complete political control would destroy impartiality, but complete institutional isolation could weaken public legitimacy. Transparent procedures, reasoned judgments, professional standards and appropriate oversight can provide accountability without subjecting judicial decisions to partisan interests.

The rule of law also depends on implementation[11]. Clear legal norms have little value when administrative bodies lack the capacity or professional competence to apply them properly. Comparable situations should generally be treated consistently through clear guidelines, internal monitoring and adequate resources. Officials need legal training, ethical reflection and practical skills. At the same time, uniformity should leave sufficient room for context-sensitive judgement, since identical treatment can itself become unjust when relevant circumstances differ.

Transparency and public accountability make legal correction possible. Governments and enforcement bodies should explain how decisions are made, which criteria are applied and how rules operate in practice. Reports, open data and public evaluations can reveal patterns of discrimination or inconsistency. Information about rights and procedures should be presented in accessible formats rather than merely made technically available. Effective transparency is qualitative and purposeful: excessive or poorly organized information may obscure rather than clarify decision-making, while privacy and legitimate confidentiality must remain protected. Monitoring should extend beyond the number of complaints or judgments to whether remedies are implemented, repeated violations decline, and systemic causes are addressed. A decision that remains unenforced corrects neither the individual harm nor the institutional process that produced it.

Formal institutions also require a supportive constitutional culture. Politicians, officials and citizens must recognize that legal limits remain binding even when particular outcomes are inconvenient. Respect for judicial decisions and the rejection of rhetoric that treats courts as illegitimate obstacles are especially important. Education and public information should improve knowledge of rights, duties, constitutional principles and the role of independent institutions. A correctable legal system depends not only on procedures but also on the willingness of powerful actors to accept scrutiny and correction.

Institutional innovation can shift the rule of law from reactive repair towards prevention. Rule-of-law impact assessments can evaluate proposed policies for equality, proportionality, fundamental rights and access to justice before implementation[12]. Accessible and proactive ombuds institutions can collect citizens’ experiences and translate recurring problems into recommendations. Data-driven monitoring can reveal unequal enforcement among regions or social groups, provided that privacy and responsible interpretation are protected.

Early-warning systems can identify declining access to justice, increasing inequality or political pressure on legal institutions before these developments become entrenched. Stronger constitutional review can provide an additional safeguard by testing legislation and policy against fundamental rights and constitutional principles. These mechanisms may create administrative burdens or tensions with elected decision-makers, so they require proportionality, transparency and democratic justification.

Preventive and constitutional review should be calibrated to institutional context. The minimum functions are independent scrutiny, reason-giving, rights protection, and effective remedy. Nevertheless, ex ante review, diffuse judicial review, specialized constitutional courts, ombuds institutions, and parliamentary rights scrutiny distribute these functions differently[13].

Several permanent dilemmas remain. Formal equality can coexist with practical inequality because citizens possess different resources and capabilities. Judicial independence can conflict with demands for democratic accountability. Legal precision produces complexity, whereas accessibility requires simplification. Efficient procedures may undermine careful consideration, while excessive caution can cause harmful delay. Political institutions must make collective choices, yet law must limit those choices when they violate rights or constitutional principles.

These tensions cannot be eliminated through a final institutional design. They require continuing evaluation and adjustment. The quality of the rule of law should therefore be judged not by whether mistakes ever occur, but by whether people can recognize, challenge and correct them effectively. A robust democratic legal order closes the distance between legal promises and lived experience, ensuring that rights are understandable, accessible and enforceable; that power remains independently reviewable; and that equality and institutional correctability are realized in practice.

Would you like to explore how a relational understanding of humanity can transform democracy, law, the economy, and public institutions? Click the link below to read the full book, Becoming Human Together, and discover a new framework for building a more humane, democratic, and correctable society within ecological limits.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/413458836_Becoming_Human_Together_Rethinking_Democracy_Power_and_Institutions_for_a_Complex_and_Changing_World

---

[1] Venice Commission, The Updated Rule of Law Checklist, CDL-AD(2025)002; Tom R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law, 2nd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).

[2] Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth, eds., Access to Justice, vol. 1 (Milan: Giuffrè, 1978); OECD, Equal Access to Justice for Inclusive Growth (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019), https://doi.org/10.1787/597f5b7f-en.

[3] European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, updated regularly; Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies.

[4] Marc Galanter, ‘Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead,’ Law & Society Review 9, no. 1 (1974): 95–160; Rebecca L. Sandefur, ‘Access to What?’ Daedalus 148, no. 1 (2019): 49–55.

[5] European Court of Human Rights, Airey v. Ireland, App. No. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 33 on Women’s Access to Justice, CEDAW/C/GC/33 (2015).

[6] European Court of Human Rights, Airey v. Ireland, App. No. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 33 on Women’s Access to Justice, CEDAW/C/GC/33 (2015).

[7] OECD, Access to Justice and the COVID-19 Pandemic (Paris: OECD, 2020); Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2018).

[8] Pamela Herd and Donald P. Moynihan, Administrative Burden (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2018); Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th anniversary ed. (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2010).

[9] Court of Justice of the European Union, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, Case C-64/16, Judgment of 27 February 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:117; European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6.

[10] Venice Commission, Judicial Appointments, CDL-AD(2007)028; Consultative Council of European Judges, Magna Carta of Judges (Fundamental Principles), CCJE (2010)3 Final..

[11] Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy; Jerry L. Mashaw, Bureaucratic Justice (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983).

[12] OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, OECD/LEGAL/0390 (2012); International Ombudsman Institute, Venice Principles on the Protection and Promotion of the Ombudsman Institution, endorsed by UN General Assembly A/RES/75/186 (2020).

[13] Alec Stone Sweet, Governing with Judges (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Jeremy Waldron, ‘The Core of the Case against Judicial Review,’ Yale Law Journal 115, no. 6 (2006): 1346–1406. The disagreement should be acknowledged rather than resolved by assertion.