Trust in business starts with the rule of law

When lawyers from around the world meet in Copenhagen at the beginning of October, attention is directed at the Danish legal profession and to Denmark as a jurisdiction.

It gives us an opportunity to welcome international colleagues and clients to a country known for strong institutions, a high degree of trust and a predictable legal framework.

That matters. For businesses, trust depends on more than relationships. It depends on knowing that agreements will hold, that rights can be enforced and that decisions by public authorities can be challenged. When that predictability weakens, the consequences quickly become commercial: investments become harder to assess, transactions more difficult to complete and disputes unavoidable.

For many years, the rule of law was something that could largely be taken for granted. In a number of countries, including some of the leading countries of the world, it is now under increasing pressure, and geopolitical developments have changed the wider conversation about legal certainty.

That is why we need to move closer together across borders and reaffirm that this is something we collectively want to protect.

Denmark’s ranking is a commercial asset

Denmark ranks first among the 143 countries and jurisdictions covered by the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index. The same index shows that 68 per cent of countries declined on the rule of law in 2025, compared with 57 per cent the year before.

That contrast matters. Denmark’s ranking is not merely international recognition of a well-functioning society. It has real economic value.

Foreign counterparties have for a long time attributed a particular value to Denmark: that it is safe and predictable, that the rights set out on paper can be relied on, and that they are effectively enforced. We hear this consistently in our international relationships, and it carries considerable weight for Denmark’s attractiveness as a country to invest in and do business with.

A ranking of this kind should be seen as a commercial asset rather than a compliment. Predictability about your own legal position is a precondition for acting, whether as a private individual or as a business. A business deciding where to invest does not look only at tax rates, talent and infrastructure. It also asks a more fundamental question: can we rely on the remaining rules?

A strong position still requires attention

Asked whether Denmark’s standing has changed over the past ten to fifteen years, my honest answer is that it has been reasonably stable, and I hope it remains so. Much of it rests on the level of trust that characterises Danish society.

But stability can create its own blind spot. When a system has worked for decades, it becomes easy to regard its foundations as permanent. They are not.

A stable position at the top of an index does not mean there is nothing to be attentive to. Legal certainty is tested in the ordinary interaction between businesses, citizens and public authorities. The point is not that Denmark’s institutions are unreliable, but that even strong systems depend on continued clarity, proportionality and access to effective review.

The ability to foresee your own legal position is essential in order to act. That applies in major cross-border investments. It also applies in the ordinary decisions companies make every day.

Advising across borders

This becomes particularly visible when businesses cross borders.

When we advise clients, part of that advice concerns the protection of rights and the question of whether those rights carry real weight in practice. For Danish clients operating abroad, it can mean paying particular attention to whether rights that appear to exist can actually be relied on when they are needed.

A contractual right is of limited value if it cannot ultimately be enforced.

In practice, this affects both the substance of the advice and the process around it. It begins with an analysis of country risk and of the political risk attaching to it. Depending on the outcome of that analysis, safeguards can be established either in the agreements themselves or through investment protection obtained by other means.

The legal environment becomes part of the commercial risk assessment.

This is also why common principles across jurisdictions matter. International business cannot depend on every country having identical laws. But it does depend on a basic level of confidence that rules are applied predictably, institutions function independently and legitimate rights can be enforced.

The alternative is not simply legal disagreement. It is greater uncertainty, greater risk and ultimately less willingness to invest, transact and collaborate internationally.

The small changes matter

The first requirement is to recognise when something is beginning to shift. Anyone who has not experienced a system in which their rights were in question will naturally tend to assume that their own position is secure.

But deterioration rarely begins with one dramatic decision. More often, it happens through a series of smaller changes that accumulate over time. Each may seem limited in isolation, while the overall picture gradually shifts.

That is precisely why the smaller developments matter. By the time the consequences become obvious, the underlying change may already have taken place.

The role of the profession

When we meet in Copenhagen, one of my agendas would be to encourage lawyers to make their views known when the rule of law comes under pressure.

It is not solely a political matter. We are the practitioners. We see where the system works and where it does not, and together with our clients we tend to notice problems early. That gives the profession both a privileged perspective and a particular responsibility.

Protecting the rule of law does not mean entering every political debate. It means speaking up when the predictability, independence and enforceability on which the legal system rests begin to weaken.

There is a widely held view, in our profession as elsewhere, that those who keep quiet fare best. On this question, I do not think that view holds.

When the global legal community gathers in Copenhagen this October, I hope we use the occasion not only to recognise the position Denmark holds today, but to discuss what it takes to preserve the conditions that made it possible in the first place.

By Niklas Korsgaard Christensen, Attorney-at-Law (H), Managing Partner, Plesner