The Rule of Law Day opened with a keynote lecture by Academician of Science Martti Koskenniemi, Professor Emeritus of International Law. He reflected on the sense of crisis that many liberals perceive in contemporary Western societies.
“I am less interested in attacks that liberals and advocates of the rule of law have been experiencing from the outside,” Koskenniemi said. “I am much more interested in the internal crisis of liberal legalism – perhaps more profoundly than at any point in this or the previous century.”
Koskenniemi delivered his lecture on October 8 at the fourth annual Rule of Law Day, where he was also awarded the Leo Mechelin Medal. The award, presented jointly by the Rule of Law Centre and the Leo Mechelin Foundation, honours individuals who have made exceptional contributions to promoting the rule of law.
The foundations of liberalism
To better understand the present, Koskenniemi first looked back at the past, to Leo Mechelin (1839–1914), often regarded as the “father” of Finnish liberalism. Mechelin’s thinking rested on the three classical liberal pillars: politics, history, and law.
”Politics in the liberal mind is defined by a tension between the group and the individual,” Koskenniemi explained.
For liberal thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th century, that tension was reconciled by democracy and parlamentarism – the idea that parliament composed of the nation’s representatives expresses its collective sovereignty.
History, Koskenniemi continued, provided balancing force between past and present through “large ideas” such as conservatism, social democracy, and radicalism, which linked individuals to a shared national past and offered a common vision of the future.
Law, in turn, managed the tension between public order and individual rights through formal legal structures, constitutionalism, and judicial independence.
Crumbling pillars
According to Koskenniemi, these three pillars began to erode in the 1970s and 1980s. Globalization challenged the liberal idea of the nation-state: in a world shaped by migration, transnational crises, and climate change, national boundaries have lost much of their meaning.
“The idea of nationhood has become universal. That changes the nation – and it ends history,” Koskenniemi observed.
Governance now relies increasingly on managing global expertise rather than engaging in national politics. Politicians have become administrators of technical challenges, while parliaments struggle to represent fragmented electorates divided by identity politics.
Historical continuity has also weakened, as short-term economic goals eclipse long-term social visions.
From legal formalism to the “rights revolution”
Turning to the third pillar – law – Koskenniemi noted that liberal thinkers first recognized that rigid legal formalism, applying the same rules equally, often led to injustice. This gave rise to instrumental law, a more purpose-driven approach that sought fairness through flexibility.
Yet this shift also transferred power from legislators to administrators and judges, who began to define what was “appropriate” or “cost-effective”. The backlash that followed triggered what Koskenniemi called the “rights revolution”– an explosion of individual rights claims.
“As every social actor began translating their interest into a right, every social conflict became a rights conflict,” he said.
This proliferation has blurred boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate claims.
“How do you distinguish between a real right and a fake right? Hate speech, for instance, can be framed as freedom of speech. The backlash against liberalism now uses liberal language itself – concepts detached from their original social structures and meanings.”
Rebuilding confidence
Koskenniemi argued that today’s situation is not just a crisis of liberalism but a broader social crisis. The growing distrust of experts and globalization reflects deeper anxieties: resentment toward perceived liberal hypocrisy and a nostalgic longing for a strong, if sometimes irrational, sense of nationhood.
Because of this, the solution cannot lie in legislation alone. “Law is merely a tool,” he said. “What is needed instead is a new social project – built on renewed confidence in institutions and expertise.”
Koskenniemi also pointed to climate change as a potential turning point in fundamental rethinking.
“The nation can no longer be the sole carrier of political or historical imagination. The new task will be to mediate the relationship between humanity and nature – a challenge that traditional liberal universalism cannot adequately address,” he concluded.
Academic freedom: a cornerstone of the rule of law
The second session of the Rule of Law Day focused on academic freedom and its role as a foundation of the rule of law, alongside a free media and a vibrant civil society.
“Academic freedom is essential for evidence-based decision-making, which is vital for sound court rulings and transparent governance,” said Tuija Brax, Director of the Rule of Law Centre. “It is a topic that hasn’t been addressed in the previous Rule of Law Days, so the time is more than ripe.”
Kimmo Nuotio, Professor of Criminal Law and Chair of the Research Council of Finland’s Board, agreed that the discussion is overdue – and that scholars themselves must lead it.
“Academia doesn’t have a monopoly on knowledge or truth anymore. It’s our job to explain why the knowledge we produce matters, and why it’s worth paying taxes for,” Nuotio said during the panel discussion.
Subtle pressures and growing polarization
Nuotio pointed out that in Finland, academic freedom remains strong and constitutionally protected, with no direct interference in research. Still, science can be shaped in more subtle ways.
“Politicians may try to steer university and research funding, influence decision-making bodies, or demand that universities contribute to economic growth,” he noted.
According to Katalin Miklóssy, University Lecturer in Eastern European Studies at the Aleksanteri Institute, threats to academic freedom also come from within.
“Societal polarization creeps into research. Scholars start taking political stances in relation to each other,” she observed, noting that this trend is particularly visible in politically sensitive fields such as research on Russia and Ukraine.
Decolonizing Knowledge in Africa
When Akosua Adomako Ampofo, Professor of African and Gender Studies at the University of Ghana, began her studies, the country was under military rule.
“Despite the restrictions that existed elsewhere in society, universities enjoyed greater freedom in teaching and research than they do today,” she recalled.
A recent debate in Ghana illustrated how fragile that freedom can be: a proposed law, if passed, would have severely limited the rights of sexual and gender minorities. “What would such legislation have meant for research?” Ampofo asked.
She emphasized that the legacy of colonialism continues to shape research across Africa, making decolonizing knowledge a crucial task. In her own discipline, sociology, this means replacing canonical European thinkers like Marx and Weber with African scholars and perspectives.
The colonial shadow is also evident in international collaborations, she said, where local perspectives are still too often ignored.
“And when international funders change their positions on certain issues, universities quickly follow,” Ampofo added.
Lessons from Eastern Europe
Miklóssy’s observations about Eastern European universities under socialism parallel Ghana’s military era: although everyone had to complete compulsory Marxism-Leninism courses, research was otherwise left relatively untouched.
“Academia was the cradle of social change and democratic thinking. When regimes changed in the early 1990s, many scholars became politicians,” she said.
In the post-socialist years, researchers had to win back the public’s trust – so deep was the suspicion toward independent science after decades of political control.
But the tide has turned again. “In the past 15 to 20 years, we’ve seen a new wave of politicization in academia, and a growing expectation that universities should serve the nation. It’s reminiscent of 19th-century nationalism,” Miklóssy noted.
Protecting academic freedom
How can academic freedom be safeguarded?
Katalin Miklóssy pointed to discussions in Latvia, Poland, and the Czech Republic about establishing an academic ombudsman – a networked role across universities that would defend scholars’ rights.
“The idea stems from a clear need. Even though academic freedom is enshrined in law in these countries, in practice it is not implemented,” she said.
In Africa, Akosua Adomako Ampofo suggested creating a regional coalition to protect researchers’ interests and to pressure governments and university leaders to uphold academic freedom.
For Kimmo Nuotio, the responsibility ultimately lies with scholars themselves: both diversity and international collaboration in research must be actively nurtured.
”As scholars, we must strive to keep the doors open and encourage our leaders to ensure that academia stays globally connected,” Nuotio said. “This is ultimately a question of mindset and intellectual curiosity, not of regulation.”
Subject to changes following review.