Rule of Law Index by Country 2000
Compare countries by Rule of Law percentile rank, reflecting confidence in laws, courts, police, property rights, and protection from crime and violence.
Interactive Map
Complete Data Rankings
Rank | ||
|---|---|---|
1 |  Austria | 98.01 % |
2 |  Australia | 95.025 % |
3 |  Canada | 94.03 % |
4 |  Cayman Islands | 91.542 % |
5 |  Barbados | 90.05 % |
6 |  Belgium | 89.055 % |
7 |  Bahamas | 88.557 % |
8 |  Andorra | 87.562 % |
9 |  Chile | 86.567 % |
10 |  Bermuda | 86.07 % |
11 |  Antigua and Barbuda | 84.577 % |
12 |  Cyprus | 84.08 % |
13 |  China, Hong Kong SAR | 71.144 % |
14 |  Cabo Verde | 69.652 % |
15 |  Czech Republic | 68.657 % |
16 |  Botswana | 67.164 % |
17 |  Costa Rica | 64.677 % |
18 |  Brunei Darussalam | 64.179 % |
19 |  Bahrain | 60.199 % |
20 |  China, Macao SAR | 57.214 % |
21 |  Bhutan | 55.224 % |
22 |  Belize | 54.229 % |
23 |  Croatia | 50.746 % |
24 |  Bulgaria | 48.259 % |
25 |  Benin | 46.269 % |
26 |  Argentina | 43.284 % |
27 |  Brazil | 42.289 % |
28 |  Bolivia | 39.801 % |
29 |  Armenia | 36.318 % |
30 |  China | 35.323 % |
31 |  Bosnia and Herzegovina | 32.836 % |
32 |  Burkina Faso | 29.353 % |
33 |  Colombia | 22.886 % |
34 |  Bangladesh | 20.896 % |
35 |  Albania | 18.905 % |
36 |  Cuba | 18.408 % |
37 |  Cambodia | 16.418 % |
38 |  Chad | 14.925 % |
39 |  Azerbaijan | 14.428 % |
40 |  Cameroon | 12.438 % |
41 |  Algeria | 11.443 % |
42 |  Côte d'Ivoire | 10.945 % |
43 |  Congo | 8.458 % |
44 |  Central African Republic | 6.965 % |
45 |  Burundi | 2.985 % |
46 |  Afghanistan | 1.493 % |
47 |  American Samoa | NaN % |
48 |  Angola | 2.488 % |
49 |  Anguilla | NaN % |
50 |  Aruba | NaN % |
51 |  Belarus | 15.423 % |
52 |  Comoros | 12.935 % |
53 |  Congo, Democratic Republic of the | 0.995 % |
54 |  Cook Islands | NaN % |
55 |  Finland | 100 % |
56 |  Denmark | 97.512 % |
57 |  Iceland | 96.517 % |
58 |  Germany | 93.532 % |
59 |  Ireland | 92.537 % |
60 |  France | 91.045 % |
61 |  Japan | 88.06 % |
62 |  Israel | 83.582 % |
63 |  French Guiana | 82.587 % |
64 |  Greece | 80.1 % |
65 |  Kiribati | 79.602 % |
66 |  Italy | 73.632 % |
67 |  Hungary | 73.134 % |
68 |  Dominica | 71.642 % |
69 |  Estonia | 68.159 % |
70 |  Kuwait | 65.672 % |
71 |  Jordan | 62.687 % |
72 |  India | 62.189 % |
73 |  Grenada | 61.692 % |
74 |  Latvia | 56.219 % |
75 |  Lesotho | 53.234 % |
76 |  Ghana | 52.239 % |
77 |  Kosovo | 51.244 % |
78 |  Egypt | 49.751 % |
79 |  Gambia | 47.761 % |
80 |  Lebanon | 46.766 % |
81 |  Gabon | 45.274 % |
82 |  Fiji | 41.791 % |
83 |  Guyana | 38.308 % |
84 |  Jamaica | 36.816 % |
85 |  Iran | 34.826 % |
86 |  Ecuador | 31.841 % |
87 |  Dominican Republic | 31.343 % |
88 |  Indonesia | 30.846 % |
89 |  Eswatini | 30.348 % |
90 |  Eritrea | 27.861 % |
91 |  El Salvador | 26.866 % |
92 |  Djibouti | 24.876 % |
93 |  Guatemala | 24.378 % |
94 |  Kyrgyzstan | 23.881 % |
95 |  Kenya | 23.383 % |
96 |  Georgia | 22.388 % |
97 |  Ethiopia | 21.891 % |
98 |  Equatorial Guinea | 8.955 % |
99 |  Greenland | NaN % |
100 |  Guam | NaN % |
101 |  Honduras | 19.9 % |
102 |  Laos | 17.91 % |
103 |  Kazakhstan | 13.93 % |
104 |  Guinea-Bissau | 9.453 % |
105 |  Guinea | 5.473 % |
106 |  Iraq | 4.975 % |
107 |  Haiti | 3.98 % |
108 |  Jersey | NaN % |
109 |  Norway | 99.005 % |
110 |  Luxembourg | 98.507 % |
111 |  New Zealand | 96.02 % |
112 |  Netherlands | 95.522 % |
113 |  Liechtenstein | 92.04 % |
114 |  Malta | 89.552 % |
115 |  Martinique | 86.07 % |
116 |  Portugal | 85.075 % |
117 |  Puerto Rico | 82.587 % |
118 |  Mauritius | 81.095 % |
119 |  Marshall Islands | 79.602 % |
120 |  Micronesia (Fed. States of) | 79.602 % |
121 |  Monaco | 79.602 % |
122 |  Nauru | 79.602 % |
123 |  Palau | 79.602 % |
124 |  Saint Kitts and Nevis | 79.602 % |
125 |  Saint Lucia | 79.602 % |
126 |  Poland | 69.154 % |
127 |  Oman | 65.174 % |
128 |  Qatar | 63.682 % |
129 |  Montenegro | 61.194 % |
130 |  Maldives | 59.204 % |
131 |  Lithuania | 58.706 % |
132 |  Malaysia | 57.711 % |
133 |  Namibia | 54.726 % |
134 |  Morocco | 53.731 % |
135 |  Mongolia | 51.741 % |
136 |  Romania | 45.771 % |
137 |  Panama | 44.776 % |
138 |  Madagascar | 44.279 % |
139 |  Nepal | 43.781 % |
140 |  Mali | 42.786 % |
141 |  Philippines | 39.303 % |
142 |  Mauritania | 38.806 % |
143 |  Mexico | 37.811 % |
144 |  Republic of Moldova | 37.313 % |
145 |  Malawi | 34.328 % |
146 |  North Macedonia | 33.333 % |
147 |  Peru | 29.851 % |
148 |  Papua New Guinea | 28.856 % |
149 |  Niger | 28.358 % |
150 |  Mozambique | 27.363 % |
151 |  Nicaragua | 26.368 % |
152 |  Paraguay | 21.393 % |
153 |  Libya | 20.398 % |
154 |  Pakistan | 19.403 % |
155 |  North Korea | 17.413 % |
156 |  Russia | 16.915 % |
157 |  Nigeria | 13.433 % |
158 |  Rwanda | 7.463 % |
159 |  Myanmar | 4.478 % |
160 |  Liberia | 0.498 % |
161 |  Niue | NaN % |
162 |  Réunion | NaN % |
163 |  Switzerland | 99.502 % |
164 |  Sweden | 97.015 % |
165 |  United Kingdom | 94.527 % |
166 |  United States | 93.035 % |
167 |  Spain | 90.547 % |
168 |  Singapore | 87.065 % |
169 |  Samoa | 83.085 % |
170 |  Slovenia | 81.592 % |
171 |  Vanuatu | 80.597 % |
172 |  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | 79.602 % |
173 |  San Marino | 79.602 % |
174 |  Tonga | 79.602 % |
175 |  Tuvalu | 79.602 % |
176 |  South Korea | 72.637 % |
177 |  Taiwan | 72.139 % |
178 |  Seychelles | 70.647 % |
179 |  United Arab Emirates | 70.149 % |
180 |  Thailand | 67.662 % |
181 |  Solomon Islands | 66.667 % |
182 |  Uruguay | 66.169 % |
183 |  Trinidad and Tobago | 63.184 % |
184 |  Slovakia | 60.697 % |
185 |  Timor-Leste | 59.701 % |
186 |  Sao Tome and Principe | 58.209 % |
187 |  Sri Lanka | 56.716 % |
188 |  South Africa | 55.721 % |
189 |  Senegal | 52.736 % |
190 |  Suriname | 50.249 % |
191 |  Turkey | 49.254 % |
192 |  State of Palestine | 48.756 % |
193 |  Saudi Arabia | 47.264 % |
194 |  Tunisia | 41.294 % |
195 |  Tanzania | 40.796 % |
196 |  Vietnam | 40.299 % |
197 |  Syrian Arab Republic | 35.821 % |
198 |  Zambia | 33.831 % |
199 |  Togo | 32.338 % |
200 |  Venezuela | 25.871 % |
201 |  Uganda | 25.373 % |
202 |  Ukraine | 15.92 % |
203 |  Uzbekistan | 11.94 % |
204 |  Serbia | 10.448 % |
205 |  Sierra Leone | 9.95 % |
206 |  Turkmenistan | 7.96 % |
207 |  Tajikistan | 6.468 % |
208 |  Zimbabwe | 5.97 % |
209 |  Yemen | 3.483 % |
210 |  Sudan | 1.99 % |
211 |  Somalia | 0 % |
212 |  South Sudan | NaN % |
213 |  United States Virgin Islands | NaN % |
↑Top 10 Countries
Analysis: These countries represent the highest values in this dataset, showcasing significant scale and impact on global statistics.
↓Bottom 10 Countries
- #213United States Virgin Islands
- #212South Sudan
- #211Somalia
- #210Sudan
- #209Yemen
- #208Zimbabwe
- #207Tajikistan
- #206Turkmenistan
- #205Sierra Leone
- #204Serbia
Context: These countries or territories have the lowest values, often due to geographic size, administrative status, or specific characteristics.
Analysis & Context
The Rule of Law Index by Country for the year 2000 offers a revealing snapshot into the global landscape of governance and justice systems. This metric reflects how effectively countries enforce laws, uphold property rights, and provide protection from crime and violence, serving as a gauge of institutional reliability and public confidence. Against the backdrop of post-Cold War democratization and globalization, understanding the Rule of Law Index provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of different national systems at the turn of the millennium.
Global Landscape of Rule of Law in 2000
The year 2000 highlighted significant disparities in the Rule of Law Index across various regions and nations. Finland led the pack with a perfect score of 100%, reflecting its robust legal institutions and high levels of civic trust. Other top performers included Switzerland (99.50%), Norway (99.00%), and Luxembourg (98.51%), all of which are characterized by stable governments, transparent legal systems, and strong protection of individual rights. These nations exemplified the efficiency of well-developed legal frameworks in fostering societal confidence and stability.
Conversely, countries at the lower end of the spectrum, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (0.99%), Afghanistan (1.49%), and Sudan (1.99%), faced considerable challenges in law enforcement and governance. These low scores were often reflective of political instability, ongoing conflicts, and weak institutional structures, which hindered efforts to uphold law and order. The stark contrast between the highest and lowest scorers underscores the critical role of governance and institutional integrity in achieving effective rule of law.
Impact of Policy and Governance on the Rule of Law
Policies and governance frameworks significantly influenced the Rule of Law Index in 2000. In countries like Denmark (97.51%) and Sweden (97.01%), a commitment to democratic principles and human rights policies provided a conducive environment for rule of law. These nations often featured comprehensive legal systems that facilitated public access to justice and ensured accountability through checks and balances.
In regions plagued by conflict or authoritarian governance, such as Angola (2.49%) and Myanmar (4.48%), state policies frequently undermined the rule of law. Political turbulence and lack of transparency allowed corruption and crime to flourish, eroding public trust and compromising the effectiveness of legal institutions. The data suggests that policy reform aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability could markedly improve the rule of law in these areas.
Economic Correlations with Rule of Law
Economic factors also played a pivotal role in shaping the Rule of Law Index in 2000. Wealthier countries with diverse economies, such as New Zealand (96.02%) and the Netherlands (95.52%), typically scored higher on the index. Their economic stability often translated into better-funded legal systems, enabling more efficient law enforcement and judicial processes.
In contrast, nations with struggling economies, such as Haiti (3.98%) and Yemen (3.48%), lagged in the index. Economic hardship often strained government resources, leading to underfunded legal systems and increased vulnerability to corruption. The correlation between economic development and rule of law highlights the importance of economic policies that support sustainable growth and institutional development.
Regional Comparisons and Trends
Analyzing the Rule of Law Index on a regional basis reveals distinct patterns and trends. European countries generally performed well, with many occupying the top spots on the index. This reflects the region's long-standing tradition of democratic governance and legal reform. In contrast, sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia faced significant challenges, as many nations grappled with political instability and weak legal institutions. The disparities between these regions illuminate the diverse challenges and opportunities in enhancing the rule of law globally.
Overall, the Rule of Law Index by Country in 2000 highlights the crucial role of effective governance, economic stability, and policy frameworks in ensuring justice and public confidence. As nations continue to navigate the complexities of globalization and development, the insights gleaned from this metric remain valuable for informing policy and fostering resilient legal systems worldwide.
Insights by country
Poland
In the year 2000, Poland achieved a Rule of Law Index score of 69.15%, ranking 63rd out of 213 countries. This ranking reflects the country's ongoing efforts to establish a robust legal framework and uphold democratic principles following the end of communism in 1989.
The favorable score can be attributed to several factors, including the implementation of legal reforms, increased judicial independence, and enhanced access to justice. However, challenges remained in areas such as corruption and the enforcement of laws, which impacted the overall perception of the rule of law.
Interesting to note, Poland's transition to a market economy and its integration into European structures, including the European Union membership in 2004, further influenced the evolution of its legal system and governance practices, contributing to improvements in the overall rule of law environment.
Libya
In the year 2000, Libya ranked 161 out of 213 countries on the Rule of Law Index, reflecting significant challenges in governance and legal frameworks. The country scored 20.39801%, indicating a markedly low adherence to the principles of the rule of law.
This low score can be attributed to various factors, including a lack of political pluralism, widespread human rights violations, and the concentration of power within the government. The authoritarian regime in place at the time limited judicial independence and restricted access to legal recourse for citizens.
Additionally, Libya's political landscape was characterized by instability and conflict, which further undermined the legal system and contributed to the country's poor standing on the Rule of Law Index. The situation in Libya serves as a reminder of the critical importance of rule of law as a foundation for stability and development in any nation.
Algeria
In the year 2000, Algeria was ranked 179 out of 213 countries on the Rule of Law Index, reflecting significant challenges in governance and judicial integrity. The country's score stood at a mere 11.44%, indicating a substantial deficiency in the rule of law and the enforcement of legal frameworks.
This low ranking can be attributed to various factors, including a history of political instability, civil conflict, and a lack of independent judicial institutions. The legacy of the Algerian Civil War in the 1990s has had enduring effects on public trust in government and legal systems, contributing to an environment where the rule of law is often undermined.
Additionally, issues such as corruption, limited civil rights, and restrictions on political expression further exacerbate the situation, hindering efforts to establish a robust legal framework. This context underscores the complexities faced by Algeria in improving its governance and legal structures in the years that followed.
North Korea
In the year 2000, North Korea was ranked 167 out of 213 countries in the Rule of Law Index, with a score of 17.41%. This low ranking reflects a significant deficiency in the adherence to legal principles, including the protection of fundamental rights, the enforcement of laws, and the independence of the judiciary.
The Rule of Law Index score for North Korea is indicative of a regime characterized by authoritarian governance, where legal processes are often manipulated to serve the interests of the ruling party rather than the populace. The lack of transparency, limited civil liberties, and arbitrary detentions are contributing factors to this low score.
Additionally, the country's isolationist policies and economic struggles further exacerbate the erosion of legal frameworks, leading to a system where laws are rarely applied uniformly or justly. This situation is compounded by the absence of civil society and independent institutions, which typically play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law.
Nepal
Nepal ranked 114th out of 213 countries in the Rule of Law Index for the year 2000, with a score of 43.78%. This positioning reflects significant challenges in the enforcement of laws and the protection of rights within the country during that period.
The relatively low score can be attributed to a variety of factors, including political instability, a history of civil conflict, and issues related to governance and judicial independence. These factors have historically undermined the effectiveness of law enforcement and the judicial system.
Furthermore, during the early 2000s, Nepal was experiencing a Maoist insurgency that severely impacted rule of law and governance, contributing to widespread violence and insecurity. This context highlights the complex interplay between political conditions and the rule of law in Nepal.
Norway
In the year 2000, Norway achieved an impressive third place ranking out of 213 countries in the Rule of Law Index, with a score of 99.004974%. This high ranking reflects Norway's strong legal framework, effective judicial system, and respect for human rights, which are fundamental components of the rule of law.
The country’s robust governance is supported by a long-standing commitment to democratic principles, transparency in government operations, and low levels of corruption. These elements contribute significantly to the public's trust in institutions and the legal system, which, in turn, enhances the overall rule of law.
Norway's legal system is characterized by its adherence to international human rights standards, efficient dispute resolution mechanisms, and inclusive access to justice. Additionally, the social welfare policies in place help mitigate inequality, fostering a stable environment conducive to upholding the rule of law.
Martinique
In the year 2000, Martinique achieved a notable Rule of Law Index score of 86.07%, ranking 30th out of 213 countries. This high ranking reflects the island's commitment to upholding legal principles, ensuring justice, and maintaining order within its jurisdiction.
The favorable score can be attributed to several factors, including a stable political environment, effective law enforcement agencies, and a well-established judicial system. These elements collectively foster an atmosphere where legal rights are protected and citizens can rely on the rule of law.
Furthermore, Martinique, as an overseas department of France, benefits from the legal frameworks and governance structures that are standard in French territories, contributing to its strong performance in the Rule of Law Index. This context underscores the relationship between governance and legal efficacy, illustrating how administrative ties can influence domestic stability and the rule of law.
Qatar
In the year 2000, Qatar achieved a Rule of Law Index score of 63.68%, ranking 74th out of 213 countries. This index measures various aspects of the rule of law, including accountability, transparency, and the enforcement of laws.
The relatively high score indicates a functioning legal system, although it also reflects the challenges faced in areas such as political pluralism and civil liberties. Factors contributing to this score include Qatar's significant investments in legal reforms and infrastructure, as well as its relatively stable political environment at the time.
Additionally, Qatar has seen substantial economic growth, primarily driven by its oil and gas resources, which have allowed the government to invest in public services and institutions, further enhancing the rule of law framework. However, as with many countries in the region, issues regarding human rights and freedom of expression remain pertinent to ongoing discussions about governance and legal effectiveness.
Myanmar
In the year 2000, Myanmar ranked 193rd out of 213 countries in the Rule of Law Index, with a value of 4.477612%. This ranking reflects a significant lack of adherence to the principles of justice, transparency, and accountability within the country.
The low score can be attributed to a range of factors, including a military-dominated government, widespread human rights abuses, limited freedom of expression, and a judiciary that is often subject to political influence. These elements undermine the rule of law and hinder the effective administration of justice.
Additionally, Myanmar's political climate has historically been marked by conflict and instability, further exacerbating challenges to governance and legal systems. The country has faced international criticism for its treatment of ethnic minorities and political dissidents, contributing to its low standing in global assessments of the rule of law.
Liberia
In the year 2000, Liberia ranked 201 out of 213 countries on the Rule of Law Index, reflecting significant challenges in governance and legal enforcement. The country recorded a value of 0.497512%, indicating severe deficiencies in the rule of law, including issues related to judicial independence, accountability, and law enforcement.
This low ranking can be attributed to the prolonged civil conflict that plagued Liberia throughout the late 20th century, which eroded institutional structures and undermined public trust in legal systems. The aftermath of the civil war left the country with weakened governmental institutions and pervasive corruption, further exacerbating the rule of law situation.
Additionally, Liberia's legal framework suffered from a lack of effective implementation and access to justice, particularly for marginalized groups. The aftermath of the 2003 ceasefire and subsequent reconstruction efforts have aimed to improve these conditions, but the legacy of conflict has posed ongoing challenges to establishing a robust rule of law.
Data Source
Worldwide Governance Indicators, World Bank (WB)
A global compilation of data capturing household, business, and citizen perceptions of the quality of governance in more than 200 economies.
Visit Data SourceHistorical Data by Year
Explore Rule of Law Index by Country data across different years. Compare trends and see how statistics have changed over time.