Evaluating the effectiveness of rule of law assistance is complicated because rule of law promotion efforts are tied to the fate of the larger post-intervention reconstruction effort. Whether one defines rule of law assistance broadly, to encompass macro-political efforts such as forging the conflict settlement blueprint, or narrowly, to include only justice-sector-related assistance, failures in governance reforms, economic reconstruction, or security measures will undermine or defeat even well-designed rule of law assistance efforts.

But as noted, even when viewed in the most favorable light, rule of law assistance has frequently yielded only very modest results. For example, in a 2001 study, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reported on the limited impact of eight years of U.S. aid intended to assist the states of the former Soviet Union to develop sustainable rule of law institutions and traditions. The report concluded that progress was slow, that conditions in key states (Russia and the Ukraine) had deteriorated, and that the limited results elsewhere in the former Soviet Union “may not be sustainable in many cases.” The study correctly noted that “establishing the rule of law is a complex and long-term undertaking in the new independent states” and that impediments to success included “limited political consensus on the need to reform laws and institutions,” “a shortage of domestic resources,” and problems in the design and management of assistance programs by U.S. agencies.

Conditions in post-intervention states are typically far less hospitable to rule of law efforts than those in the former Soviet Union.