Professor reveals how to recognise the first signs of the rule of law weakening

A professor has outlined the early warning signs of a weakening rule of law, noting that democracies rarely collapse suddenly but instead erode gradually through small compromises, according to a report by the training and organisational consulting agency “Good to know”.

The first signs often include statements that courts obstruct the “true will of the people”, independent institutions are portrayed as obstacles to progress, and the supremacy of law is dismissed as slow and ineffective. Over time, society grows accustomed to the idea that legal boundaries can be pushed under certain circumstances, and democratic procedures become seen as obstacles rather than values.

Hans Petter Graver, a professor at the University of Oslo and a researcher of North European legal philosophy and the rule of law, argues that politicians seeking autocracy often openly express hostility toward judges and courts. “The driving force is always politicians who want to act without legal constraints,” he said.

Graver believes the future of democracy depends not only on strong institutions or well-designed laws but also on individuals who choose to act in critical moments. His book, Valiant Judges: Stories of Courage and Integrity, explores this idea through 13 real-life stories of judges and legal professionals who, under political or social pressure, chose conscience and professional responsibility over convenient compliance.

The stories span different countries, eras, and political systems but share a common question: what determines whether people adapt to an unjust system or resist it? “The brave ones see the moral consequences of their duties, take responsibility, and have the will to act,” Graver said.

He argues that a judge’s role cannot be reduced to the technical application of legal norms. In a democratic state, judges bear a greater responsibility: safeguarding the very foundations of the rule of law. “Judges have a direct duty to defend the rule of law. We should think of them like other professionals—firefighters or ship captains—from whom we expect to risk even their lives to save others,” Graver stated.

Legal history shows that authoritarianism rarely consolidates power through open violence alone, the professor notes. Authoritarian regimes often rely not only on overt force but also on legal instruments to control society and maintain their rule. When judicial decisions are limited to formal legal methods—without considering the purpose of law in a democratic state, fundamental moral values, or the imperatives of legal consciousness—the judiciary can become a tool for legitimising authoritarian power rather than an independent guarantor of justice.

This distinction—between a judge who merely applies the law and one who upholds the rule of law—is central to Graver’s work.