On Oct 28, the World Justice Project released the Rule of Law Index 2025. The WJP was founded in 2006 as a presidential initiative of the American Bar Association and became an independent, nonprofit organization in 2009.

Based in New York, the WJP is now an established international civil society organization whose mission involves “working to advance the rule of law around the world”.

The WJP’s annual index is the world’s leading source of original, independent rule-of-law data, and its findings are invariably revelatory — and this year was no exception. The latest index assesses the extent to which 143 jurisdictions adhere to the rule of law in practice (up from 142 in 2024).

The index provides data on eight aspects of the rule of law: limited government powers, absence of corruption, order and security, fundamental rights, open government, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice. It describes accountability, just laws, governmental transparency, and accessible and impartial justice as the “building blocks for any rule of law system”.

Once again, the index has rated Hong Kong highly, surpassing some of its fiercest critics, including those in the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Whereas it was ranked 24th worldwide, it came sixth out of the 15 places surveyed in the East Asia and Pacific region. Although Hong Kong was ranked 23rd last year, its overall score this time (0.72) was equivalent to those of the jurisdictions ranked 22nd and 23rd globally (France and Uruguay).

Once the individual rankings are examined, an even rosier picture emerges. For example, Hong Kong ranked ninth globally in the “absence of corruption” category, but rose to 15th in regulatory enforcement, indicating that its arrangements are comprehensive and effective. Although its legal system has faced Western criticisms, primarily in relation to national security cases, the index’s rankings for criminal justice, civil justice, and constraints on government powers were essentially the same as previously. And, crucially, the Judiciary was reaffirmed as independent under the Basic Law.

Although Hong Kong’s scores and global rankings dropped slightly in the categories of “open government” and “fundamental rights”, its ranking in these areas in East Asia and the Pacific was unchanged. Even though the drop in these two areas was only minor, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has nonetheless taken it seriously. It has pledged to “continue to strengthen its explanatory work through various channels”.

Given the challenges Hong Kong has faced and the relentless Western propaganda, its high rankings were remarkable, a testament to its resilience. They showed that once objective analysts clinically examine the situation, a wholly different picture emerges from that peddled by the ideologues.

Indeed, the rankings demonstrated the extent of Hong Kong’s achievements under the “one country, two systems” governing policy. They were testament to its independent Judiciary, its world-class criminal justice system, and its adherence to the values of the common law world (which will upset anti-China forces everywhere, whether in Brussels, London, or Washington).

Indeed, the rankings demonstrated the extent of Hong Kong’s achievements under the “one country, two systems” governing policy. They were testament to its independent Judiciary, its world-class criminal justice system, and its adherence to the values of the common law world (which will upset anti-China forces everywhere, whether in Brussels, London, or Washington)

A particularly fascinating ranking in the index was that of the US, which came 27th, three places behind Hong Kong. The significance of this was that when the US Department of State, headed by Marco Rubio, submitted its 2025 Hong Kong Policy Act Report to the US Congress on March 31, it accused the Beijing and Hong Kong authorities of having “eroded Hong Kong’s judicial independence and rule of law”.

However, the index has done everybody a service by revealing that Hong Kong is streets ahead of the US in the rule of law categories. It is, for example, reassuring to learn that. In contrast, Hong Kong was ranked 21st out of 143 in the “criminal justice” category and 20th in the “civil justice” category; all the US could achieve was 37th place in both categories. Unless he wants to leave Congress with a false impression, Rubio should inform it of how well Hong Kong has done in comparison with the US. In case he has overlooked the index’s findings, it is now incumbent on the US consul general in Hong Kong, Julie Eadeh, who is supposed to believe in honest reporting, to notify him.        

The rankings, moreover, also exposed the mischief-making of the UK’s new foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper. On Oct 23, just five days before the index was published, she maligned the city in her six-monthly Hong Kong report. She bizarrely claimed, for example, that fundamental rights were being “negatively impacted” by the national security laws, which also “threatened” the Judiciary. The lesson to be learned, therefore, is that, to avoid making a fool of herself again, Cooper (and her successors) should await the publication of the index before publishing any more flawed reports.  

The index’s rankings also buried the fallacies propagated by the EU. On Sept 11, for example, its vice-president and high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Kaja Kallas, issued the EU’s annual report on Hong Kong. Although it alleged the “continuous erosion” of the city’s high degree of autonomy and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people, the WJP has now set the record straight, indicating the extent to which Hong Kong surpasses many of the EU’s member states.  

For example, Spain was ranked 25th, Slovenia 26th, Portugal 29th, Cyprus 30th, Malta 31st, Poland 32nd, and Italy 34th. Far lower down came Romania at 44th, Croatia at 46th and Greece at 48th. Apart from anything else, these rankings showed that many of the EU’s member states have much to learn from Hong Kong in terms of strengthening their legal frameworks.

By the time Cooper and Kallas put pen to paper next time round, the UK’s consul general in Hong Kong, Brian Davidson, and his EU counterpart, Harvey Rouse, will, like Eadeh, hopefully have explained the index’s findings to them. They cannot have taken any pleasure in seeing Hong Kong’s situation being distorted by politicians with crude agendas of their own to serve.

If, moreover, their superiors spout nonsense about Hong Kong’s situation, it also reflects on them and brings into question the quality of the briefings they provide. Apart from pointing out to their superiors that the US lagged well behind Hong Kong in major categories, they should also emphasize the lower placings of many EU member states, which should give both Cooper and Kallas pause for thought.

Instead, therefore, of slandering Hong Kong, Kallas should focus on putting her own house in order, if necessary, by learning from the Hong Kong paradigm. And Cooper should also note how the city has trounced a slew of EU countries in the rule of law stakes. If, notwithstanding the index, Cooper chooses not to apologize for having misrepresented Hong Kong’s situation, the least she can do is to acknowledge in her following report that its rule of law rankings put those of many of the UK’s neighboring states to shame.

The balls, therefore, are now in the courts of Cooper and Kallas. Although both are neophytes, with Kallas having only been in post for 11 months and Cooper for two, their blunders cannot forever be excused because of inexperience. It must be hoped that, once they have got the hang of things, they will not embarrass themselves and their countries again.

If, moreover, the pair wants to be taken seriously, they should do their homework before holding forth on Hong Kong’s situation (as should Rubio, who is also new to his job, having only been appointed on Jan 21). If they do not, they risk bringing the good name of stupidity into disrepute, and this would never do.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.