For many years, the rule of law has been one of Armenia’s most debated political and civic issues. After Armenia joined the Council of Europe, it also became part of the country’s international commitments, where the rule of law is considered a fundamental value. How much progress has Armenia made since independence? Are the trends stable or vulnerable? What do global indicators reveal? Doctor of Law Taron Simonyan offers his perspective.
Global Indicators: the Trend Is Not Consistently Positive
International tools — such as the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index, Freedom House reports, and assessments by the Council of Europe — show a cyclical dynamic. Armenia saw some improvements in the early years of independence and again after the 2018 political transition. Yet recent years demonstrate a clear decline.
“The trend has never been consistently positive,” Simonyan notes. “There were periods of progress and periods of regression. Today, the decline is most visible in judicial independence, legal certainty, and the stability of legislation.”
He emphasizes that frequent legislative changes — many of them politically driven — including controversial amendments to the Constitution, undermine the core principle of the rule of law.
Another area of concern is the separation of powers. According to Simonyan, this principle has weakened not only in Armenia but also in many countries across the region and the world.
“In many modern states, separation of powers is shifting away from strengthening the rule of law and toward the dominance of a single political actor,” he says.
Objectivity of International Indices Is Not Absolute
Simonyan stresses that international rankings are important but cannot capture the full reality. Many indicators, he argues, do not always reflect the true legal environment — especially now, amid global shifts and changes in the international legal order.
He adds that for several states, geopolitical and economic interests have become more important than legal principles.
“The recent series of wars has shown that the primacy of force often comes first,” he says. “Because of this, some states retain high positions even when their level of violations should place them below zero.”
He points to Azerbaijan as an example.
“Despite ethnic cleansing, genocidal practices, and crimes against humanity, Azerbaijan still holds relatively high rankings,” he notes.
Decline Must Be Addressed Internally as Well
Concerns about the objectivity of indices should not become an excuse for tolerating the erosion of the rule of law, Simonyan warns.
International indicators must be treated as a mirror for the state and as a tool for civil society to demand reforms.
“They allow us to understand our real level of development and to push state institutions back into the framework of legality,” he explains.
Simonyan concludes that Armenia needs not only international monitoring but also an internal, independent assessment system. Citizens and civil society organizations should be part of this process.