The rule of law, a foundational value of the European Union as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, faces challenges in implementation due to historical and political factors that have evolved over the past decade, particularly within Member States in the administrative domain. While institutional backsliding in countries like Hungary and Poland has drawn significant political attention, less emphasis has been placed on the role of public administrations in upholding or undermining the rule of law on a day-to-day basis. This paper argues that the sustainability of the rule of law in the EU requires more than legal compliance mechanisms. These alone do not address the underlying administrative and cultural factors necessary for effective implementation. Instead, it requires closer attention to how rule-of-law principles are embedded in the everyday functioning of public administrations. This argument is informed by the authors’ systematic examination of recent EU monitoring practices and administrative reform instruments. Adopting a mixed conceptual-empirical methodology, the paper draws on primary data from EU Rule of Law Reports (2020–2024), the EU Justice Scoreboard, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), and the Technical Support Instrument (TSI), complemented by relevant OECD/SIGMA indicators. Several structural obstacles emerge from the analysis. These include symbolic compliance, whereby organisations adopt formal structures without corresponding behavioural change; weak institutional leadership that fails to drive reform momentum; and the absence of integrated performance metrics, which hampers meaningful accountability. Fragmented ownership of reform agendas, in turn, breeds inconsistency in implementation. These challenges point to the limitations of a technocratic or legalistic approach to rule-of-law governance. Strategic leadership and organisational flexibility emerge from the evidence as preconditions—not merely facilitators—of genuine internalisation, though the relationship is context-dependent. Digitalisation can reinforce these dynamics, yet its contribution depends on whether it is embedded within broader integrity-oriented reforms. The paper advocates for a shift from externalized compliance mechanisms to a model that emphasizes administrative ownership through specific strategies such as developing integrity-based leadership programs and embedding governance practices that prioritize transparency and accountability. It proposes concrete institutional reforms, including performance-linked conditionalities that tie funding to measurable outcomes, ethical leadership academies to train future leaders, integrity audits to ensure accountability, and administrative benchmarking to set clear standards, as tools to foster autonomous, value-driven public institutions capable of adapting to evolving governance challenges while maintaining core democratic values.
Kirmikiroglou et al. (Thu,) studied this question.