On 9 April 2021, the Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) received from the Dutch
government a request for advice on human rights in a changing world. The basic premise of
the request was that the multilateral system, as it has developed since the Second World War,
is increasingly under pressure. In the government’s view, autocratic tendencies are eroding the
multilateral system from within, and this is having a clear impact on human rights.
The request for advice draws attention to several troubling developments. The basic principles
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (human dignity, universality, equality/non-
discrimination and indivisibility) are being challenged more and more frequently, not only outside
the EU but also within it. Due to the rapidly growing influence of autocratically governed states, the
preconditions defined by the Netherlands for pursuing an effective international human rights policy,
such as space for civil society, cooperation with like-minded partners and the proper functioning of
multilateral instruments, are under pressure.
Summary:
….In this advisory report of 28 June 2022, the AIV aims to set out a path – in both conceptional and operational terms
– for Dutch human rights policy abroad. To this end, it is important to have a good understanding of
how the human rights system came into being and how it has come under pressure in recent decades.
….Historical analysis shows that the relevance of the human rights system has increased in recent
decades. Although the universality and legitimacy of the ideas in question are a source of constant
debate, empirical research demonstrates to what extent – and under what circumstances – human
rights make a difference. The AIV believes that the universality of human rights should be the central
focus but it cannot be equated with uniformity in the implementation of those rights. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/11/17/rescuing-human-rights-another-way-of-re-assessing-human-rights/]For many
states, cultural and historical differences have helped shape their varying approaches to human rights.
In fact, universality in the sense of universal acceptance of human rights is actually enhanced and
promoted when cultural diversity is acknowledged.
Despite all these achievements, the multilateral human rights system is under serious pressure.
The beginning of the 21st century was a turning point in this regard. During this period, various
events and developments concurred to undermine and erode the multilateral system and the human
rights system that had developed over the previous fifty years. These events and developments include
9/11 and the ‘war on terror’, the success and subsequent stagnation of democratic developments and
the resulting pressure on civil society, new geopolitical relations, the impact of globalisation and
challenges within the human rights system itself.
After 11 September 2001, the war on terror in Afghanistan and later in Iraq gave rise to practices
that were sometimes at odds with international law. As a result, the West in particular was accused
of applying double standards. In addition, while pro-democracy movements in the Arab world
and elsewhere achieved successes (thanks in part to social media), they also prompted regimes to
respond with repression against civil society and human rights defenders. Alongside a rapid rise in
China’s economic, military and political power and self-assurance, the United States’ international
involvement was foundering (a trend which intensified later under President Trump) and the Russian
Federation became increasingly repressive. In the midst of these geopolitical developments, the EU
proved unable to play a significant enough role to prevent the decline of the human rights acquis.
Furthermore, the wave of neoliberal globalisation, which was initially regarded as having a positive
economic and social impact, also turned out to have negative effects. Both externally and beyond
doubt internally, the West was increasingly confronted with rising income and wealth inequality at
national level, the growing power of multinational corporations, and the intractable misuse of social
media by governments, organisations and individuals.
In addition, the human rights system itself faced considerable obstacles: the indivisibility of
political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights was not adequately guaranteed and new positive
developments, such as the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, did not make their
human rights component explicit enough. Human rights instruments were further undermined by
overextension and insufficient funding, which negatively impacted their effectiveness.
Due in part to these developments, the unanimously accepted principle of the universality of human
rights was put in jeopardy, partly because states increasingly expressed reservations about the
principle and partly because a growing number of autocratic, repressive states appeared to have little
or no interest in the human rights acquis.
Nevertheless, there have also been some positive developments. New and in some cases global non-
governmental movements made up of non-traditional actors, often including young participants,
are standing up for social justice and human rights. Businesses are taking a more active approach to
showing respect for and promoting human rights, on their own initiative or as a result of external
pressure. Professional associations and networks are increasingly cooperating at global level to
protect human rights. The EU’s human rights instruments are becoming stronger and more
sophisticated in response to external threats and internal negative tendencies in countries such as
Hungary and Poland. Finally, a new approach to human rights has taken hold at national and local
level, for example in the form of national human rights institutes.
In contrast to the aforementioned political and social changes and threats, these developments create
new opportunities for the realisation of human rights around the world. However, the question is
how the Dutch government should take advantage of these opportunities. How can the Netherlands
actively promote human rights around the world while also continuing to respect them at national
level?
A robust and effective human rights policy requires a strong foreign policy narrative. In this revamped
message, human rights are the crucial link between the Netherlands’ core values and policy goals at
national and international level. Human rights can be more solidly anchored if they are explicitly
incorporated into other global policy areas and narratives, such as the Sustainable Development
Goals, climate, the environment and migration. Coalitions with like-minded countries and
partnerships with civil society within and outside Europe are essential in this regard. The Netherlands
must focus on developing new international and EU instruments to protect human rights and tackle
human rights violations, such as the human rights clauses in EU trade, partnership and association
agreements.
The AIV calls on the government to prioritise human rights. As far as foreign policy is concerned,
this requires the Netherlands to take an effective and explicit moral stance in a complex environment
characterised by realpolitik and tense international relations. A more integrated approach, new
partnerships and the provision of an effective counterweight, based on an understanding of the
cultural context in other countries, are key building blocks in this regard.
Human rights are not just a worthy ideal but also a clear matter of enlightened self-interest, in that
they form a vital link between democracy and the rule of law, on the one hand, and international
security, on the other. Idealism need not be shunned, and every effort must be made to preserve the
international human rights acquis. In order to achieve this goal, however, a much more pragmatic
and realistic approach that recognises today’s realities, including shifts in geopolitical relations, is
required.
Such an approach has both a foreign and a domestic dimension. In addition to prioritising human
rights internationally, the Netherlands also ought to do so at home. This approach requires an
appreciation of other viewpoints, but a robust response when internationally accepted, fundamental
boundaries are crossed.
Only in this way can the Netherlands more effectively protect and promote human rights as a core
interest in a changing constellation of political forces.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 