‘In a world where the United Nations is neutered, where transnational alliances have scarcely been weaker, it offers an alternative vision to a world increasingly aligned along axes of brute power and wealth. It articulates the increasingly outmoded idea that there is a shared set of values and rules by which all must abide.’
That was a Guardian columnist’s verdict on the International Bar Association, whose annual conference next week will attract 6,000 lawyers to Copenhagen. I jest, of course. The journalist was actually referring – in somewhat highfalutin terms – to the ‘broader significance’ of this week’s Manchester City judgment (news, p4). But he might as well have been talking about the IBA.
Founded in 1947 in the benign shadow of the emergent UN, the IBA was conceived as a legal counterpart to the nascent multilateral order. Its founders believed that cooperation among bars and lawyers could contribute to international peace, stability and the rule of law.
Decades later, it still defines itself in those terms. ‘I am part of a continuum working to uphold the rule of law, access to justice and the independence of the legal profession,’ declared 2026 president Claudio Visco, a senior partner at Italian firm Lipani Legal & Tax. ‘This fills me with pride, but also with a deep sense of responsibility. We are witnessing unprecedented violations of these fundamental principles in jurisdictions where such developments would once have been unthinkable.’
Few would argue with that; but is the IBA living up to these lofty ideals? The association has its detractors. Some allege that the annual conference has morphed into a schmooze-and-booze fest, dominated by well-heeled corporate lawyers looking to make lucrative connections.
This is wrong-headed. All professionals network (or should) and lawyers are hardly unique in staging cross-border conventions. Besides, there is far more to the IBA than networking.
Aside from its status as (literally) an international standard-bearer for technical excellence, the IBA and its Human Rights Institute remain among the most visible global voices defending endangered liberal nostrums such as judicial autonomy, lawyer safety and democratic governance. If the IBA did not exist, someone would have to invent it. Especially now.
The best argument for supporting the association is the erosion of multilateralism which critics allege undermines its enduring relevance.
No comments yet