Log in
This case study focuses on the right to assemble and to protest through International human rights' law. It has impacted upon judicial rulings of human rights' compliant approaches to monitoring and policing peaceful protest. Sustained research with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has increased national and international understandings of and respect for one of the fundamental human freedoms through the development of the Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (Jarman et al. 2010). These guidelines are increasingly recognised as international soft law standards and they have been used by international and national human rights' organisations throughout eastern Europe and the south Caucasus including the United Nations. The beneficiaries of this research impact are governments and NGOs working across eastern Europe, the south Caucasus and central Asia. They include Amnesty International, Human Rights' Watch, Helsinki Foundation and the International Foundation for Human Rights (FIDH).
The research examines how the use of norms and standards of human rights and equality law are used to measure human rights performance through `human rights and equality impact assessment'. The work has been directly used by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Pacific and Geneva), the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, the Canadian Government, and the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC), and has been influential both in developing and in changing policy. It has also been used by a wide range of civil society organisations in the UK, Europe, Pacific, India and Canada, and has informed debates at all levels of government.
Sustained published research in the area of UN human rights treaty body reform has positioned O'Flaherty as the principal international specialist in the area. He led the 'Dublin Process on the Strengthening of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Body System', a process that is acknowledged globally as the primary context/forum for the reform of the treaty body system. A number of specific proposals made by the Dublin Process on reforming the human rights treaty body system draw directly from his research.
Professors Carolyn Hoyle and Roger Hood have, since 1988, carried out wide-ranging comparative research in Oxford on the death penalty. Their work has had impact in several countries, including Trinidad, India, Uganda, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Most recently, it is acknowledged as having contributed to reforms of the death penalty in China, the main case discussed here. In February 2011, China abolished the death penalty for 13 non-violent crimes, thereby reducing the number of crimes punishable by death from 68 to 55. Various influences shaped these changes, and in a society where access to academic work is highly restricted, the influence of most foreign research inevitably has been minimal. The comparative studies undertaken by Hood and Hoyle, however, are a remarkable exception. The only work of its kind to have been translated, published, and widely disseminated in China, it provided a unique resource and body of evidence, and was used not only by emergent civil society groups, but also in official Chinese circles, including the judiciary. The impact of their research in China extends the existing worldwide influence of their research.
Essex research on developing quantitative indicators for assessing countries' performance on human rights and democracy has informed the work of a number of international organisations. Professor Todd Landman's research has been used by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in its provision of assessment frameworks and by the UN Development Programme in its work on democratic governance and sustainable development. Landman's research on democracy underpins the main resources employed by the inter-governmental organisation, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), based in Sweden. These resources have been translated into four languages and are used to assess the quality of democracy throughout the world. He also provides training for International IDEA's 150 members of staff on the measurement and assessment of democratic performance.
Skogly's research has significantly contributed to the understanding of how and to what extent states' human rights obligations go beyond the territorial borders of states. Increased globalisation has led to the need to address the human rights effects of states' international actions and operations, and Skogly's research in this area has directly influenced the development of authoritative principles regarding ETOs, and these are now actively used by NGOs and the United Nations. The case study focuses on how research findings have enabled NGOs and UN bodies to understand, articulate and apply states' extraterritorial human rights obligations.
Emerging from investigations of social exclusion during the 1990s, the Unit's research into minority rights has led to outputs and consultancy ranging across political participation, identity, rights protection and international criminal law. The impact claimed here falls in two main channels. Firstly, research on socio-economic group rights, amplified by Castellino's work as co-chair of the relevant UN delegated group, has made a significant input into the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2015-30. Secondly, research has been incorporated into practice and capacity- building through projects involving judiciaries, advocates, statutory bodies, and NGOs. Beneficiaries include the public across 194 states who will benefit from implementation of SDGs over their 15 years lifespan; and civil society bodies and their users.
Rowan Cruft's work on how a right's moral importance reflects the nature of its grounds had a significant impact on Lord Leveson's report, in particular on the principles which Leveson takes to ground a free press. Cruft was an expert witness at the Inquiry, and his evidence is cited (pp. 62- 4, 71, 84, 88, 1684), forming a major part of the report's theoretical underpinnings. Cruft's evidence drew together research, presented in previous publications, on what can be learnt about the weight of different rights — e.g. individual citizens' rights, the rights of journalists and media organisations — by examining their grounds.
The research impact elaborated in this case study was facilitated through the Human Rights and Terrorism project, which was led by Conor Gearty between 2005 and 2008. Through a series of seminars on accommodating the demands of human rights alongside the interests of national security, the Human Rights and Terrorism project engaged with policy makers and those concerned with criminal justice and anti-terrorist measures. Research produced by Gearty in connection with the seminars shaped parts of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 so as to integrate it within the traditional criminal law model.
The European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), led by Leach, has combined research and litigation over ten years, to achieve access to justice for individuals in the former Soviet Union. It has mentored and trained lawyers and non-governmental organisations; raised awareness about human rights violations; and improved the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Impact on public policy is evidenced by: (i) justice for individuals; (ii) compensation secured through the ECtHR; and (iii) consequential changes in national law and policy. To date, EHRAC's impact includes 98 ECtHR judgments against Russia, Georgia and Ukraine, on behalf of 1,100 victims.