Credits: Radboud University Nijmegen

By: Letizia Bozzi & Ewa Romanowska

     I. Introduction

This year’s Annual Research Conference of the Netherlands Network for Human Rights Research (the Toogdag) took place at Radboud University Nijmegen on 11 and 12 June 2025. The conference was organised by a stellar committee from the Research Centre for State & Law (SteR) consisting of Prof. dr. Jasper Krommendijk, Prof. mr. Machteld Vonk, Dr. Annick Pijnenburg, Jeske Jansen, Lisa van Roermund, Sandra Arntz, and Emilia Klebanowski.

The thematic focus of this year’s Toogdag, Access to Justice (A2J), is particularly significant in a time marked by growing political instability, backlash against international courts, governmental pressures, and threats to academic freedom. Ensuring A2J is a crucial step in holding different actors accountable for human rights violations. Yet, this raises important questions: what exactly is A2J, and can it ever be fully achieved?

These questions were guiding the participants throughout the two days of the Toogdag, starting with Prof. Helen Duffy’s opening keynote, presenting three hurdles to A2J, legal, procedural, and institutional, as well as the humble nature of A2J as an ongoing process rather than an end in itself. This presented a background for exploring further issues with A2J, as well as the tools available for accessing justice. The span of discussions focusing on different fields of human rights, as well as different parts of the world, is visible throughout the eight thematic panels outlined in this report.  These discussions and this year’s Toogdag also perfectly highlight the Network’s effort to connect the interacting themes of human rights research. They also act as a stepping stone for the creation of further bridges between academia and practice.

     II. “Access to Justice for Humankind”: Reflections from Prof. Helen Duffy’s Keynote Address

In her keynote address “Access to Justice for Humankind”, Prof. Helen Duffy explored evolving threats, challenges, and opportunities in the pursuit of A2J in an increasingly uncertain and unpredictable world. While outlining that A2J is essential for upholding the rule of law, Prof. Duffy urged us to find the balance between ambition and modesty. While A2J is vital, in her words, “the revolution will not be litigated”. This duality between hope and humility was central to her address.

Existential Threats to A2J

Prof. Duffy started by outlining a list of existential threats to A2J that together form a “perfect storm”: climate change, democratic backsliding, and the rise of authoritarianism, characterised by the marginalisation of human rights under the guise of exceptionalism. This tension between, on the one side, human rights, and on the other side, (self-) defence and national security, has led to the sidelining of legal safeguards, with the government justifying increasing repression of dissenting voices. This erosion of norms makes the struggle for justice more urgent.

Legal, Procedural, and Institutional Challenges

Alongside these existential threats, Prof. Duffy also reminded us that many practical challenges hinder people’s ability to access justice. First, legal barriers, which present hurdles to justice enshrined in law. Prof. Duffy cited amnesty laws and blanket immunity provisions which can shield perpetrators from accountability, even in the face of clear violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law (IHL). Prof. Duffy recalled her involvement in the ongoing blanket immunity case of Ismail Ziada v. The Netherlands, which raises fundamental questions such as whether the crime of the accused (in this case, serious human rights and IHL violations) and the fact that the victim was left with no alternative legal venue to bring their claim, play a role.

Second, procedural hurdles are no less significant. Courts are often inaccessible due to high costs, lengthy delays, and, in the case of international courts and tribunals, stringent admissibility requirements. Prof. Duffy explained that international courts, both overwhelmed with requests and under-resourced, are incentivised to dismiss cases as early as possible. This raises serious questions about whether these fora can meaningfully provide justice for all victims. For example, in the recent Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland judgment, the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible claims by elderly Swiss women suffering health impacts linked to climate change, despite compelling evidence. This raises critical questions: How much suffering is “enough” to have standing? And how can justice be achieved for future generations, when today’s victims are already precluded from accessing justice?

Vulnerability of Justice Actors

Finally, Prof. Duffy focused on the capacity and vulnerability of justice actors. She recalled her involvement in the case of Hadijatou Mani v. Niger. The claimant, a woman living in rural Niger, was held in slavery, despite slavery being prohibited and criminalised in domestic law. Local courts simply did not apply the law, creating a systemic justice deficit. Why did the courts not apply domestic and international law? Prof. Duffy recalled that the answer was simple: there were only 113 qualified lawyers in Niger, for 25 million people, and they were mostly located in the capital. Judges in rural areas did not physically have access to the law and comparative jurisprudence. This showed that justice can fail through simple inaccessibility.

All Hope is Not Lost

Despite these obstacles, Prof. Duffy also presented reasons for cautious optimism. Strategic litigation and legal mobilisation continue to evolve, often driven by victim-centred approaches that view justice as an ongoing process rather than an outcome. Justice actors have shown both creativity and resilience, such as in the recent South Africa v. Israel case pending before the International Court of Justice.

Equally inspiring is the resilience of victims and NGOs who persist in using legal processes to foster accountability and societal change. Prof. Duffy explained that cultural representations, such as the film Argentina 1985, highlight how legal struggles can embed themselves in national consciousness and strengthen democratic processes.

A Call for Humility and Critical Reflection

In her concluding remarks, Prof. Duffy called for a modest, self-critical approach to A2J. To be effective, legal action must be situated within a broader justice process that includes political, social, and cultural dimensions. As she poignantly concluded, “the revolution will not be litigated”. Lawyers and advocates must recognise the limits of the system they work within, while continuing to push its boundaries.

In her powerful address, Prof. Duffy reminded us of that A2J is not just about legal remedies, but also about restoring the victim’s dignity and trust in the rule of law. Justice, to be truly accessible, must work for the people.

     III. Thematic Panels

Business & Human Rights

After the keynote, the participants headed into thematic panels to continue the discussion on the self-critical pursuit of A2J through their specific research areas. The first panel, organised by the Business & Human Rights Working Group, focused on the topic of justice and global business. The panel, chaired by one of the coordinators of the working group, Nicky Touw (Open University), commenced with Silvia Ciacchi (Erasmus University Rotterdam) outlining her research on merging the economic and legal perspectives of assessing sustainability due diligence legislation. Abdurrahman Erol (Erasmus University Rotterdam) also presented his insights from the case of Alamos Gold v Türkiye with a view to highlighting the local voices in investment dispute settlement proceedings. Last but not least, the panel featured Eva Meyermans Spelmans (Erasmus University Rotterdam), who guided the participants through the exploration of the CSDDD in the global supply chain of the apparel industry. This panel highlighted and assessed the role and context of sustainability due diligence rules.

Migration & Borders

The Migration & Borders Working Group presented four different perspectives on salient human rights issues occurring at the borders and in local courts. Sara Lambrecht (Ghent University) began by presenting insights from her research on the approach to refugee children in asylum procedures. Backed by interviews with the participants in the asylum procedure, her research highlighted that refugee children are subjected to an even greater degree of distress stemming from the lack of information about the process, the consequences that the proceedings will bring about, and the way the courtroom is organised. The next panel featured Elias Tissandier (Leiden University), who presented his research on a LGBTQ+ child rights approach to eligibility for asylum status, highlighting the lack of legislation that covers LGBTQ+ children within the asylum procedure, leaving them unprotected.  The next presentation was given by Irina Fehr (Tilburg University), who presented her research into Croatian criminal law and the possibility of its use for litigating harms perpetrated against migrants by state agents. Finally, Gezy Schurmans (Tilburg University) presented insight into her recent visit to Argentina and research into the “Querellante” system.

A2J: Mobilisation and Litigation

The third panel focused on mobilisation and litigation and was chaired by Sandra Arntz (Radboud University). Anubhav Shekhar (EUI) presented his research on the application and possible revision of current theories of legal mobilisation to the death penalty in India. His research is primarily motivated by the lack of work on legal mobilisation in the Asian/South-Asian Context and no comprehensive account of India’s anti-capital punishment movement. Kate Murphy (Ghent University) took the listeners to a different part of the world – El Salvador – and outlined the background of the occurring mass arbitrary arrests, as well as explaining how the ill-treatment of prisoners is normalised. In light of that, Kate showed that only two interim measures were granted by the Inter-American Human Rights System since 2015, highlighting the limited A2J, noting that a new request was submitted on 9 May 2025. Rengin Tarhan (Utrecht University) focused on the exploration of factors influencing lawyers in Turkey and their willingness to bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights.

Human Rights & The Climate Crisis

After the lunch break, the panellists and participants reconvened with the Human Rights & the Climate Crisis Working Group, which presented three distinct perspectives on climate justice litigation. The panel, chaired by Dr. Julie Fraser (Utrecht University), was commenced by Irem Akin (Erasmus University Rotterdam), who outlined the corporate law pathways to reaching accountability for corporate harms – for example, through influencing the decisions of the board of directors by the shareholders of the company. Clara Kammeringer (University of Amsterdam) continued the discussion. She presented her research on the crucial role of non-citizens in corporate climate lawsuits, highlighting the democratic relevance of corporate climate litigation. Clara also shared her insights from the recent decision in Lliuya v RWE and the idea of holding emitters responsible as an expression of a “value-based legal system”. Dr. mr. Esra Akdogan (Wageningen University) presented her recently defended and published PhD dissertation on the sustainability chapters in the European Union’s Free Trade Agreements. Esra highlighted accountability issues stemming from the soft nature of the obligations present in the agreements and the lack of enforcement mechanisms available. One example thereof is the existing complaint mechanism overseen by the European Commission, which suffers from the Commission’s discretion to pursue the claims.

Economic, Social & Cultural Rights

The panel of the working group on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights was a particularly special occasion. It was the first time the Working Group got together, after being founded earlier this academic year. Three speakers highlighted different aspects of A2J through a social rights lens. Dr. Nathalie Schnabl (Open University), one of the Working Group coordinators, spoke about the barriers and safeguards with respect to A2J and the rule of law. She highlighted how A2J requires knowledge, skills, a social network and financial means. Without those means, individuals will have difficulty accessing justice. Dr. Jolanda Andela (policy advisor at the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights) spoke about the work of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights. A particular focus of the Institute is housing and protection against poverty, which are prominent concerns among the Dutch population as well, together with climate change. The childcare benefits scandal in particular demonstrates the importance of improved A2J; the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights would be an important step in that direction. Prof. Gijsbert Vonk (Groningen University) discussed the project: “Reform of the Dutch constitution: a blueprint for social rights”. Under prof. Vonk’s lead, a group of scholars are proposing a concrete reform of the Dutch constitution. The proposal consists of, among other things, the introduction of judicial review against the constitution and the strengthening of social rights in the constitution, going from a programmatic model to an individual rights approach. The panel was chaired by mr. Lucas Dikkers (Radboud University).

A2J: Challenges & Innovation

The panel “Access to justice – challenges and innovation” was chaired by Lisa van Roermund (Radboud University). It kicked off with a presentation by Dr. Kasim Balarabe (Jindal Global Law School) on innovative models for advancing A2J beyond the courtroom. In a powerful address, he reminded participants that “justice belongs to the people, not professionals”. He highlighted the limits of court-based approaches, which can often serve as a tool of oppression, rather than emancipation. Through a paradigm shift, justice can be re-imagined from the bottom up, by using community knowledge, local language, and building community trust. Dr. Balarabe explained that such models are being successfully implemented all around the world – from South Africa’s Community Advice Offices (CAOs), to Bangladesh's Salish Reform. Thereafter, Dr. Magdalena Brewczynska (Tilburg University) presented on regulatory sandboxes for LLM-backed legal counselling. She concluded that while pilot projects are showing promising results, seen for example, in Utah’s Legal Regulatory Sandbox pilot program, it is too soon to conclude whether such tools can meaningfully facilitate A2J. The last presentation was given by Julián Suárez (University of Cork). It explored the strengths and weaknesses of adopting a “rights of nature” approach to uphold the objective dimension of environmental human rights in international law. Such an approach raises contentious questions about who should represent nature in judicial proceedings.

A2J: Integration & Discrimination

The panel on integration and discrimination consisted of three presentations. The first presentation focused on tackling chronic challenges in the field of integration and was given by Vivi Paschalidou (Greek Council for Refugees). The second presentation discussed A2J for exploited migrant workers with Dr. Amy Weatherburn (KU Leuven). The last presentation, delivered by Konrad Turnbull (University of Groningen), explored the chilling effect of systemic discrimination upon access to justice.

     IV. Conclusion

Throughout the Toogdag, PhD members of the Network, accompanied by senior members and practitioners, had a chance to critically engage with A2J through looking at the topics of sustainability due diligence, migrant’s rights, international and national litigation efforts, climate disputes, economic, social and cultural rights, integration and discrimination, as well as tangible tools for A2J. This variety of research interests presented throughout the presentations and discussions, all with a view of improving A2J, only reaffirms the crucial point of mainstreaming human rights and continuously bringing human rights debates to the forefront of action. This also plays an important role in the Network’s direction and its next steps in supporting the research endeavours of its PhD members while building bridges between academia and practice.

Bio:

Letizia Bozzi is a research intern at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Netherlands Network for Human Rights Research.

Ewa Romanowska is the current academic coordinator of the Netherlands Network for Human Rights Research and a student assistant at T.M.C. Asser Instituut.