The rule of law is considered an essential element to guarantee the development of modern societies. Despite this and the democratizing waves that emerged after the Cold War, in recent years the world seems to have entered a stage of institutional stagnation, democratic erosion, and, more broadly, a rule-of-law backsliding at the transnational level. In this chapter, we present evidence of the deterioration of the rule of law at the transnational level and on how this phenomenon has come about. To do so, we use data from the WJP Rule of Law Index produced by the World Justice Project covering more than 100 countries for the period 2015 to 2022. We find that the rule of law has deteriorated in recent years around the world. This trend, however, masks variation in different indicators. Using cluster analysis of the change over time in the main indicators of the Index, we identify three groups of countries. The first is composed of countries that have experienced a deterioration in all indicators, but most notably in those measuring limits to state power, open government, and respect for human rights. The second group is composed of countries where overall rule-of-law trends have declined slightly. These countries have also experienced considerable decline in the indicators measuring limits to state power and respect for human rights, albeit of lesser magnitude. The third group is composed of countries where most indicators show slight improvements. These results suggest that the deterioration in the rule of law has been driven by the weakening of limits to state power. In contrast, except in those cases that have experienced a sharp decline, the weakening of the rule of law has not been driven by an acute deterioration in the application or enforcement of the law or in access to justice. We also find that the weakening of the rule of law appears to be associated, in part, with an increase in the authoritarian tendencies of already authoritarian regimes and, in part, with the rise of anti-pluralist and populist leaders.

I argue that transnational law has a formal legal character. To do so, I build on socio-legal scholarship in this domain, but apply a jurisprudential perspective. Specifically, I argue that public fiduciary theory is well-placed to explain the nature of authority evoked by transnational legal orders, as well as their legal features and constitution. This theory claims that the fiduciary character of an organization - that is, its other-regarding purpose and adherence to certain procedural standards - is a necessary feature of its claim to legitimate authority. By addressing these jurisprudential questions, public fiduciary theory contests scholars who deny transnational law’s formal legal character. Ultimately, I argue that despite the private constitution of some transnational lawmaking bodies, and their lack of express public authorization, by fulfilling a transnational fiduciary role they exercise authority that either is or closely resembles public authority. This, in turn, contributes to the legal character of the transnational norms these bodies generate. I use the International Organization for Standardization as an illustrative case study. The implications of this approach include acknowledging that law can exist beyond national or international state regulation, and a denial that coercion is an essential element of law.