Attorney General Trust and public confidence in institutions built to protect people is eroding

By  Ben Kerrigan-

 Trust and public confidence in the institutions established to protect ordinary people are eroding, the Attorney General has warned, as he called for renewed commitment to international law amid mounting global conflict, economic uncertainty and growing questions about the effectiveness of the rules-based international order. In his first speech on international law at the London Conference  on International law 2026 since becoming Attorney General for England and Wales, she argued that the crisis facing international institutions is no longer a distant diplomatic concern but one with direct consequences for British households, public safety and individual rights.

“Trust and public confidence in the institutions built to protect ordinary people are eroding,” he said, warning that institutions including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), NATO and the United Nations face mounting challenges. The warning came as he addressed the London Conference, where he made the case that international law remains essential to protecting people from abuses of power, maintaining economic stability and ensuring that criminals cannot evade justice by operating across national borders. His central message was that the answer to weakening confidence in international institutions should not be to abandon them, but to demonstrate more clearly how they protect the public.

“Law does not exist in a vacuum,” he said, drawing on his previous career as an employment rights lawyer representing trade unions and workers, as well as supporting women facing discrimination in the workplace.

He argued that the principles governing relations between states have practical consequences for individuals, just as domestic law determines whether people can defend their rights and seek justice when things go wrong. The Attorney General acknowledged that public scepticism towards international law is understandable when people see reports of devastating conflicts and apparent impunity for those responsible.

“We have all turned on the news or checked our phones and seen the horrendous suffering in places like Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine,” he said.

“When those responsible for that suffering appear to act with impunity, without fear or accountability, it is natural for people to question what role international law really plays.”

His remarks identify a central challenge for international institutions: their credibility depends not simply on the rules they establish, but on whether those rules can be enforced and whether violations have meaningful consequences. The Attorney General said that criticism must be taken seriously rather than dismissed, but insisted that the failures and limitations of international law do not make it irrelevant. The question, he argued, is whether abandoning international cooperation would leave ordinary people better protected or make them more vulnerable to aggression, economic disruption and abuses of power.  His answer was unequivocal: international law must remain central to Britain’s approach to global affairs.

The Attorney General pointed to the economic consequences of international instability as evidence that events abroad can quickly affect households at home. The cited Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and disruption to energy markets, alongside the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, as examples of how conflict and restrictions on vital shipping routes can contribute to higher energy costs, petrol prices and household bills. He also highlighted the vulnerability of British public services to foreign state-backed cyberattacks, which can disrupt critical care and threaten patient safety in hospitals.

These examples formed part of his wider argument that international law is not an abstract system reserved for diplomats and lawyers. Rules governing maritime passage, trade and international cooperation help determine whether goods reach British shops, whether businesses can operate reliably and whether essential services can withstand threats originating overseas. The Attorney General argued that the public should be able to see the relationship between international agreements and the everyday security and prosperity they help sustain. Making that connection, he suggested, is essential if public confidence in international institutions is to be maintained.

Human rights protections under pressure

The European Convention on Human Rights was another central element of the speech, with the Attorney General defending its role in protecting individuals against excessive or unjustified state action. He cited cases in which human rights protections had enabled patients to challenge do-not-resuscitate orders imposed without their consent, people with learning disabilities held in locked units to be reunited with their families, and elderly married couples in residential care to challenge attempts to separate them.

He also highlighted the case of victims of serial rapist John Worboys, whose legal action helped establish that police could be required to investigate rape allegations rather than simply turn victims away. These examples were intended to demonstrate that human rights protections are not solely concerned with major constitutional disputes. They can determine whether people have a voice when confronting institutions with far greater power and resources. The Attorney General acknowledged that international institutions face pressure and cannot remain unchanged indefinitely. He said the government had been working with European partners to strengthen and modernise the Convention in response to contemporary challenges. His position was that reform and adaptation should reinforce the effectiveness of human rights protections rather than undermine their underlying purpose.

The Attorney General also pointed to the government’s position on Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories as an example of its commitment to international law. He said the government had formally concluded that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, following consideration of Israeli actions in the occupied territory, particularly their scope and intended permanence. He described the decision as consistent with, but independent of, the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the occupied Palestinian territories. The government, he said, would introduce an import ban on goods from illegal Israeli settlements and prohibit their advertising in the UK. He presented the policy as an example of Britain seeking to translate its interpretation of international law into practical decisions rather than treating legal commitments as merely rhetorical.

The Attorney General acknowledged that international law is imperfect and that the institutions supporting it face genuine challenges. But he argued that their shortcomings should prompt renewed efforts to improve cooperation and accountability.

“Imperfection does not mean unimportant,” he said. He called for Britain to work more closely with allies, recommit itself to international obligations and explain more confidently the benefits of international cooperation. His warning about eroding public confidence therefore carries a broader challenge for government: institutions cannot expect lasting public support simply because they exist. They must demonstrate that they can protect people, uphold rights and respond effectively when those protections are threatened. In an increasingly uncertain world, the Attorney General argued, the answer is not retreat from international commitments but stronger cooperation and a clearer explanation of why they matter. Whether that approach can restore public confidence will depend not only on the government’s words, but on whether the institutions it defends can deliver meaningful protection and accountability in practice.

The Attorney General said  international agreements help protect household finances, bring organised criminals to justice and safeguard individual rights, warning that retreating from global cooperation would leave ordinary people more exposed to economic shocks and abuses of power, inistant legal framework with little relevance to everyday life. It helps determine the cost of household energy, whether families can travel abroad, whether criminals operating across borders can be prosecuted and whether vulnerable people can challenge decisions made by the state.

That was the central message from the Attorney General in his first major speech on international law since taking office, as he argued that Britain’s prosperity, security and individual freedoms depend on international rules that many people rarely think about. He warned that public confidence in institutions established to protect ordinary people is eroding, while international conflict and growing pressure on the rules-based order are making cooperation more important than ever. “International law determines what happens here, just as much as domestic law does,” he said.

His argument was that the practical benefits of international agreements are often overlooked precisely because they operate in the background. Their importance becomes apparent when conflict disrupts trade, criminals exploit international borders or individuals find themselves powerless against institutions. The Attorney General outlined four areas where international law directly affects people’s lives: economic prosperity, everyday opportunities, public safety and protection from state overreach.

The Attorney General began with the economy, pointing to the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on energy markets and the disruption caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.He cited higher oil and gas prices, increased pressure on household bills and the wider consequences of international instability as examples of how events thousands of miles away can affect families across Britain. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital shipping route for global energy supplies. Restrictions on commercial vessels passing through it can disrupt the movement of goods and contribute to volatility in international markets. The Attorney General argued that international maritime law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, provides essential protections for navigation through international straits.

He contrasted the disruption affecting Hormuz with the Dover Strait, where more than 400 commercial vessels pass unimpeded each day, exercising transit-passage rights protected under international law. These arrangements help goods move between markets, support British exports and sustain the supply chains on which businesses and consumers depend. His point was straightforward: international rules do not guarantee stable prices, prevent every conflict or eliminate economic shocks. But they establish protections and expectations that make international trade more predictable. When those rules are violated, the consequences can reach far beyond the countries directly involved.

International law also underpins activities that millions of people take for granted, including flying abroad and travelling between European countries. The Attorney General highlighted the Chicago Convention, which establishes the international framework for civil aviation, including standards for safety and rights relating to international flights. Agreements between countries enable airlines to operate international routes with greater legal certainty, allowing passengers to travel between destinations under established arrangements. He also pointed to the treaty arrangements that enable Eurostar services between Britain and France and international agreements supporting the recognition of foreign driving licences. Such agreements may appear unremarkable, but they make cross-border travel more reliable and practical.

The Attorney General used these examples to challenge the idea that international law exists primarily to restrict national governments. Instead, he argued, international agreements create the stability and cooperation that allow people to travel, businesses to operate and families to enjoy opportunities that would be much harder to secure without common rules.

How international cooperation helps bring criminals to justice

The Attorney General’s third argument focused on public safety, including the prosecution of serious organised crime. He said Britain relies on international agreements to extradite suspects, exchange evidence and coordinate investigations when criminal activity crosses national borders. Without such arrangements, offenders could exploit differences between legal systems or seek refuge overseas to avoid prosecution. But he also stressed that international criminal cooperation must respect due process. Evidence gathered abroad must be obtained lawfully, and extradition procedures must be fair if prosecutions are to proceed successfully. International agreements provide a framework for cooperation while helping ensure that legal safeguards are respected.

In order to illustrate the practical consequences, he cited the case of ten members of a major organised crime gang who were sentenced last year to a combined total of 207 years in prison. The operation was estimated to be worth £26 million and involved drugs, firearms and money moving across borders. The gang’s leader had directed parts of the operation from Spain and believed he could evade justice by using the encrypted messaging platform EncroChat. According to the Attorney General, cooperation between multinational law enforcement agencies was crucial to bringing the gang to justice. The case demonstrated how intelligence-sharing, tracking suspects and coordination between countries can help disrupt criminal networks that would be difficult for any single national police force to tackle alone.

His message was that safer communities depend not only on effective domestic policing but also on the ability to pursue criminal activity beyond Britain’s borders. The Attorney General also defended the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, which brought the Convention’s protections into domestic law in the UK.

He cited cases involving patients, people with learning disabilities and elderly care-home residents to illustrate how human rights protections can give individuals a means of challenging decisions that affect their dignity, autonomy and family life. Among the examples he highlighted were patients challenging do-not-resuscitate orders imposed without their consent and elderly married couples resisting attempts to separate them in residential care. He also referred to legal action by victims of serial rapist John Worboys, which helped establish that police could be required to investigate rape allegations.

The examples illustrated his argument that human rights law can provide practical safeguards when people are confronted by institutions that hold considerable authority over their lives. He acknowledged that the European Convention faces pressure and must adapt to changing circumstances, but argued that modernisation should strengthen its ability to protect people rather than diminish its underlying purpose.  A warning about weakening international institutions

The Attorney General’s defence of international law came with a broader warning about declining public confidence. He acknowledged that people may question the value of international institutions when they witness suffering in Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine and see those responsible apparently escaping accountability. He argued that these concerns should be confronted directly, rather than dismissed, but warned against concluding that international law has no meaningful role simply because it cannot prevent every violation. He also cited the government’s position on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, which he said the government had concluded was unlawful, alongside plans for an import ban on goods from illegal settlements and a ban on their advertising in the UK. He presented the policy as an example of the government seeking to align its actions with its interpretation of international law.

The Attorney General’s speech ultimately rested on a practical proposition: international law matters because its consequences reach into ordinary lives, from the prices people pay to the safety of their communities and the rights they can exercise. He acknowledged that international law is imperfect and that the institutions supporting it face serious challenges. But he rejected the idea that those weaknesses justify abandoning international commitments. “Imperfection does not mean unimportant,” he said. His warning was that a retreat from international cooperation would not necessarily restore national control or protect the public from global instability. It could instead weaken the arrangements that help Britain manage economic shocks, prosecute international criminals and defend individual freedoms.

he also said that victims  facing rising costs  and seeking justice and people challenging decisions made by powerful institutions, those arrangements can have consequences far beyond the diplomatic negotiations in which they are established. The challenge for the government, however, is to ensure that the institutions it defends remain effective and accountable, and that the benefits it describes are visible in practice. The Attorney General’s message was clear: international law may often operate out of sight, but its effects are felt at home. Britain’s ability to protect its people, he argued, depends in part on preserving and strengthening the international rules that make cooperation possible.