Log in
This case study demonstrates that the Transitional Justice Institute (TJI) peace process research has substantially impacted on key stakeholders in multiple conflicted and post-conflict states. Impacts include developing sustained relationships with public officials to inform policymaking, making recommendations for legal changes, capacity building with local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on peace process issues and addressing conflict-related abuses, informing public debate, and raising awareness of international and comparative legal standards among local judiciaries subsequently applied in their work. Impacts have benefited a range of users and contributed to growing sensitivity to victims' needs in conflict resolution.
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.
The key recommendations of the `hybrid model' of the Justice System in Afghanistan, developed by Dr Wardak, were written into draft Afghanistan law under the title, `The Law on Dispute Resolution, Shuras and Jirgas', by the Ministry of Justice. The ideas derived from Wardak's new model were piloted in different parts of Afghanistan by the United States Institute of Peace, by USAID, TLO and CPAU. Preliminary results of pilot studies, in selected districts in Afghanistan, indicate that the hybrid model provides workable solutions to many of the problems that Afghan state and non-state justice systems currently face.
A key challenge for Western policy makers and legal practitioners in formulating justice and security responses to mass atrocity in the African Great Lakes region is to understand the political, social and cultural causes of conflict, and the manner in which past conflicts can be resolved and potential future conflicts prevented. Phil Clark's research sheds much-needed light on these issues, and assesses the nature and impact of both local and international transitional justice responses. This research has prompted his active engagement with international judicial processes and debates on aid policy, encouraging international actors to be more aware of local dynamics around conflict and justice, with the wider aim of maintaining the vulnerable stability of post-conflict nations in Africa.
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.
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.
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.
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 Vogler between 1993 and 2013 on the theoretical principles and practical modalities of global criminal-justice reform led to specific influence on the Georgian Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) 2009, e.g. Arts 170-176 (arrest), 196-208 (pre-trial release), 49-50 (non-compulsion of witnesses) and 219-224, 226, 231-236 (jury trial). This was achieved through sustained and direct influence on the criminal-justice reform process in Georgia 2002-13. In addition, following the enactment of the new CPC, Vogler provided recommendations on implementation, and devised and conducted training for the constitutional court on the new CPC.
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.