Log in
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.
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.
Eyal Weizman's decade-long programme of research into the relation between architecture and conflict has been formative to the establishment of the new field of "Forensic Architecture". His research-based books have been the basis for his production of influential human rights reports, several of which have been presented as evidence in international trials and/or have informed policies relating to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Appointed as the director of the Centre for Research Architecture at Goldsmiths in 2005, in 2011 he was awarded ERC funding of €1.2M for a project [Forensic Architecture] on the place of architecture in international humanitarian law: this has generated spatial evidence crucial to legal issues concerning the conflicts in areas of the world including Palestine, Guatemala, Pakistan and the Yemen. His extensive collaboration with international human rights organisations and the UN have meant that his work has achieved very wide reach. His work reached multiple audiences through numerous public lectures and media presentations as well as extensive exhibitions in leading cultural and architectural institutions worldwide.
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.
Professor Sheldon Leader has worked on assessing the impact of foreign direct investment on human rights and sustainable development. This research has analysed investment contracts that have been damaging for human rights in developing countries, and Leader's work has resulted in recommendations for better human rights protection in future investment contracts. His recommendations have been adopted in new contracts, such as that between BP and the government of Turkey. His analyses of damaging investment, through his work as Director of the Essex Business and Human Rights Project, have informed the work of NGOs such as Amnesty International and Global Witness, and his consultations have contributed advice to the work of the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office to develop a government strategy on business and human rights.
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.
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).
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.
Research conducted by Dr Liora Lazarus and colleagues at Oxford helped shape public and parliamentary debate on the merits of a domestic Bill of Rights for Britain. Some had argued that if Britain were to replace the Human Rights Act (HRA), which allows rights in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to be argued before domestic courts, with a British Bill of Rights, the government would gain greater flexibility, e.g. in addressing terrorist threats. The research showed that to be incorrect. This finding informed Reports to the Ministry of Justice, was influential in hearings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and among human rights professionals, and was later used in Ministry of Justice training materials for judges on the nature of `proportionality' in human rights adjudication. It has situated one of the most controversial debates in British politics on a more secure evidential foundation, and provided reliable information to governments and others on the way courts can be expected to handle certain human rights cases.