Human rights defenders at risk can receive three months of temporary protection, tailored support, and networking in the Netherlands. Deadline: 2 August 2026.
Justice & Peace Netherlands has officially opened applications for the Shelter City Spring 2027 Programme, offering human rights defenders (HRDs) at risk the opportunity to spend three months in the Netherlands in a safe, supportive, and inspiring environment. The application deadline is 2 August 2026.
The internationally recognized Shelter City initiative provides temporary relocation for human rights defenders facing threats because of their peaceful activism. During the programme, participants receive tailored support, strengthen their professional networks, and develop new strategies to continue advancing human rights in their home countries.
With 14 Dutch cities participating in the Spring 2027 cycle, the programme represents one of Europe’s leading temporary protection initiatives for frontline human rights advocates.
Shelter City is coordinated by Justice & Peace Netherlands and is designed to offer temporary safety and capacity-building opportunities to human rights defenders who are working under difficult or dangerous conditions.
Rather than serving as a permanent relocation initiative, Shelter City provides participants with a temporary period of rest, reflection, professional development, and international networking before they safely return home to continue their important work.
The programme recognizes that human rights defenders often operate under immense pressure, including intimidation, harassment, surveillance, threats, arbitrary detention, or violence. By offering a secure environment, Shelter City enables participants to recover, strengthen their resilience, and enhance the effectiveness of their advocacy.
The Spring 2027 Shelter City Programme will run from:
March to May 2027
Participants will stay in one of 14 participating cities across the Netherlands for approximately three months.
The programme is structured to ensure participants return home better equipped—both professionally and personally—to continue defending human rights in their own communities.
Today was the funeral of one my best friends and, more importantly, one of the most significant architects of the international human rights system as it developed in the last 50 years. Theo (Theodoor Cornelis) van Boven, was born in Voorburg on 26 mei 1934 and died peacefully in Maastricht on 9 mei 2026.
I have had the honor to work with him for many years [our lives intertwined over a long period of time and on different locations] and wrote about him several times. Most recently “Courageous Leaders and NGO Initiatives” in Ramcharan and others (ed), The Protection Roles of Human Rights NGOs, Essays in honour of Adrien-Claude Zoller, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, 2023 (ISBN 978-90-04-51677-9), pp 614-636.
So, here a large part of the section on this great man: This section is about a man who was crucial in getting the United Nations and NGO partners to deal with human rights protection. Much has been written about his work and the enormous contribution Theo van Boven made to the UN human rights machinery as we now know it. .. Nowadays the United Nations has an elaborate machinery to deal with human rights violations. The system is far from perfect and still too often subject to political pressures and selectivity but there are now a great many thematic and country mandates, emergency sessions and there is an International Criminal Court against impunity. Wind back 40 years and none of this existed. The violations were there for all to see but not for the United Nations, which preferred to consider this part of the ‘internal affairs of sovereign states’. The man who would make it his life’s mission to change this, Theo van Boven, got in 1977 the position from where to do it: Director of Human Rights in the UN.
His teenage years were eaten up by the second world war. His memories of that period, his strict protestant background and his law studies in Leiden led him to enter an area that was not so obvious at the time: international human rights. He studied in the USA, wrote there a thesis on freedom of religion and soon afterwards, around 1960, he found himself as a young diplomat shaping the human rights policy of the Netherlands. A decade later the protest against the Vietnam war, the violations by the Greek colonels, the coup d’état in Chile and President Carter’s new policy on human rights pushed human rights suddenly higher on the political agenda. Theo had become an expert member of the UN Sub-commission on Human Rights and was one of the engineers of the first UN effort to investigate large-scale human rights violations, namely Chile. I myself met him when he was still a young professor lecturing on human rights in Amsterdam. Then – in the summer of 1977, the same month I started at the ICJ – he was appointed Director of the small human rights secretariat of the UN in Geneva. Here he started his work to bring dictators to accountability and to give the UN a capacity to deal with gross and systematic violations of human rights. Something that is now taken for granted but it would cost Theo his job.
Unlike his predecessors, Theo van Boven did not put all his faith in quiet diplomacy and he regularly talked about the need for the UN to address gross and systematic violations, about the mobilisation of shame and stated that the UN should care about victims. He also started to receive the victims – and the NGOs who represent them – in his office. This led to an incident that would be comic if it was not for the consequences. J. Matarollo was an Argentinean exile lobbying against the generals in his homeland who were killing left-wing opponents by the thousands. Theo agreed to hear him and told his secretary (inherited from his predecessor) to call Matarollo to give him an appointment in the early of hours of the next day. She faithfully called the Argentinean embassy assuming that he was a diplomat as these were the kind of people that normally met with the Director. The next day there was no Matarollo but an angry Note Verbale from Argentinean Ambassador Martinez accusing Theo of meeting with terrorists.
In the UN he did not conform to the image of the traditional diplomat, e.g. by pinning an anti-apartheid button on his suit, but even more so by publicly stating that NGO reports about dead bodies floating down a river in Guatemala were true, or by denouncing disappearances in Chile and Argentina. When in 1980 the government in the USA changed and Ronald Reagan and his team decided to play down violations by right-wing regimes, especially in Latin America, Theo did not flinch and openly criticised their support to these dictatorships. “Naming and shaming” by a UN official was unusual and not easily accepted by the diplomatic community. The Latin American regimes – led by Argentina and silently encouraged by the US – started a campaign to oust Van Boven as Director of Human Rights.
To complicate matters for van Boven, the new UN Secretary-General must have felt little sympathy for this particular Director, as J. Perez de Cuellar had earlier, in 1980, been appointed as Special Representative by the previous Secretary General to go to Uruguay and look into the human rights situation. His report was such a whitewash that it was heavily criticized in the Commission on Human Rights. How correct this reaction had been was shown when the famous pianist Estrella – whom de Cuellar claimed to have visited in the Libertad prison – came to Geneva and told the I.C.J and others that there had been no such visit.
In the meantime in 1980 Theo had put great energy – together with some key NGOs in creating a Working Group on Enforced Disappearances. As a mechanism focusing only on Argentina was politically not feasible, the new idea was to create a thematic mandate on the phenomenon of disappearances in the knowledge that Argentina was going to be the main target. At the decisive session the tension was enormous as the outcome of the vote was very uncertain. The Jordanian Chairman of that session had to deal with endless procedural issues, many of them proposed by Uruguay (egged on by Argentina which was only an observer). Finally, late at night the Chair felt that the resolution creating the mandate could be passed without a vote and moved to do so, but the Uruguayan Ambassador again started to put up his name plate as a sign that he wanted the floor. The Chairman quite unusually interrupting, looked directly at the Uruguayan Ambassador and said: “I URGE my brother from Uruguay NOT to do this..” The name plate slowly turned downwards again and the Chair immediately declared the resolution adopted. The NGOs and tens of Mothers and Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo in the public galleries started a spontaneous applause and quite a tear was shed. ..
In early 1982 the issue of Theo van Boven’s tenure as Director came to the fore. His contract had to be renewed which normally was a routine matter, but not this time. The issue came to an explosion when Theo’s opening speech to the Human Rights Commission was sent on a Friday evening to the UN Secretariat in NY for information and at the same time given to the UN Office of Information in Geneva for distribution at the time of delivery the next Monday morning. The UN Office of Information decided to make the statement available to the media that very Friday evening (with the usual proviso: “check against delivery”). The Representative of Guatemala in Geneva obtained a copy of the statement and vehemently objected to the statement. The SG’s office demanded that Theo should refrain from mentioning countries by name – which Theo refused not only out of principle but also because the press would notice the difference on Monday and assume that there had been pressure to remove the names.
As a family friend bringing the kids back from a ski outing, I happened to overhear Theo on the phone to New York agreeing to a ‘compromise’: he would mention at the beginning of his speech that certain passages were done in his ‘personal capacity’. A few days later Theo was suddenly informed that his contract would anyway not be prolonged. His announcement at a dramatic session of the Human Rights Commission grew quickly into an international diplomatic incident.
As I was on the verge of leaving the ICJ, I had some time on my hands. So I got the idea – warmly supported by Niall McDermot – to publish a book with a selection of Theo’s major speeches from the last five years. One of his Special assistants, Bertie Ramcharan, who had written a good part of them, was very helpful and we managed to get a book out within only 6 weeks. The first copy was flown in to Geneva by the publisher and presented to Theo at a public farewell which the ICJ had organised for him. NGOs, some UN staff and students showed up in such large numbers at the university hall that the fire brigade had to refuse access to late comers. Speech after speech – including by Saddrudin Aga Khan – cantered on Theo role in getting the UN machinery on human rights to deal with violations more concretely and on his support for human rights NGOs…
With Ian Guest and many others, I remain convinced that Theo’s dismissal from the UN was the result of pressure by Latin American dictatorships with support from the Reagan administration. As stated in People Matter, he was “hired and fired for the same reason: his deep commitment to human rights”.
After his dismissal Theo and his family returned to the Netherlands where many were very disappointed that there was no real interest in giving him an equivalent position in the foreign affairs department and he ‘ended up’ in the new University of Maastricht as professor of international law, where together with others such as Cees Flinterman he bent the research programme into his favourite direction: human rights. He continued his involvement in international activism in a variety of functions: with NGOs (e.g. European Human Rights Foundation, IMADR, International Alert), and with the UN (e,g. the Sub-commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Compensation 1990 -1993, Special Rapporteur on Torture 2001-2005, first Registrar of the UN Yugoslavia Tribunal). In 1998 he became the Head of the Dutch Delegation to the Rome Conference which created the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In 1985 he was called to Buenos Aires as a witness to testify against the nine military leaders (including Videla) for their human rights violations in the period 1976 en 1983. The UN had advised him not to go but he felt that he should do anything to end the impunity of these perpetrators. Theo’s testimony – he was called already on the 2nd day – was seen as crucial in establishing that the leaders of the Junta must have known about the massive violations. Theo took the same position with regard to the father of princess Maxima Zorreguieta (the wife of the king of the Netherlands). As Minister of Agriculture Jorge Zorreguieta must have known about the atrocities and should at least have taken distance instead of denying any knowledge. A position which Theo took in 2001 and was still heard defending in 2012.
In the light of Theo van Boven’s recurring clashes with Argentina it must have given him great moral satisfaction when on 26 November 2009 he received a degree honoris causa from the University of Buenos Aires as well as the highest decoration from the Government.
ICTJ stated: “Van Boven’s commitment to the pursuit of justice was relentless. He spoke up about impunity and accountability in contexts of repression such as the military dictatorships in Argentina and Chile, where he also championed the cause of the disappeared, even when political pressure limited others from doing so. Today, ICTJ honors his voice, his perspective, and his deep-rooted legacy. Inspired by his resolve, we will continue our commitment to uphold human dignity above all else in the pursuit of justice and lasting peace all over the world, however long it takes.“
Now finally there is some closure as reported by ANP on 4 June 2025:
In El Salvador, three suspects have been found guilty of murdering four Dutch journalists that were working for IKON in 1982. All three were handed a prison sentence of 15 years, several Salvadorian media outlets reported, including the newspaper Diario El Salvador.
After a hearing that took longer than 11 hours, the jury ruled that all the suspects were involved in the death of the journalists. The suspects are the former Minister of Defense, Guillermo Garcia (91), former director of a special police service, Francisco Antonio Moran (93), and former colonel Mario Reyes Mena (85).
Koos Koster, Jan Kuiper, Hans ter Laag, and Joop Willemsen, four journalists who worked for the now defunct broadcaster IKON, were reporting on the civil war in the country in 1982. They walked into an ambush at Chalatenango and were killed. A now-repealed amnesty law prevented the prosecution of the perpetrators for years.
Sonja ter Laag (70), the sister of Hans ter Laag, responded to the verdict. “I am very happy that the people who murdered my brother have been convicted. And that they will go to their graves as murderers. We can finally close this after 43 years.”
She added that the victim’s relatives have been living in a state of hope and desperation for the convictions for 43 years. “That costs a lot of energy, you don’t want to know. And now it is over. The people who gave the order to murder my brother, an innocent 25-year-old boy, will be punished.” Ter Laag did not mind that the elderly men would not have long to live anymore. “In any case, they will not go to their grave decorated.”
The judges imposed a lower sentence than the maximum set by the law. Instead of a prison sentence of 30 years, they imposed 15 years because of the defendants’ age and poor health.
García and Morán are being treated in a private hospital. El Salvador has requested the extradition of Reyes Mena. He currently lives in the U.S.
If the world knew about the extent of the brutality of Assad’s regime against its own people, it was in part because of Mazen, an activist who was an outspoken critic of the regime. On Sunday 8 December 2024, his body was found in the notorious “slaughterhouse”, Seydnaya prison in Damascus. It bore signs of horrific torture. A doctor who examined it told the BBC he had fractures, burn marks and contusions all over his body, allegations corroborated by Mazen’s family.
“It’s impossible to count the wounds on his body. His face was smashed and his nose was broken,” his sister Lamyaa said.
A protester when the uprising in Syria began in 2011, Mazen Al-Hamada was arrested and tortured. Released in 2013, he was given asylum in the Netherlands. He began to speak openly about what he was subjected to in prison. In the documentary Syria’s Disappeared by Afshar Films, Mazen describes how he was raped, his genitals clamped, and how his ribs were broken by a guard jumping on his chest over and over again.
While in asylum, Mazen’s nephew Jad Al-Hamada says he began suffering from severe depression and other mental health issues. …In 2020, he decided to return to Syria.
“The government told him he had a deal and that he would be safe. He was also told that his family would be arrested and killed if he didn’t return,” Lamyaa said. He was arrested as soon as he arrived in the country. And his family believes he was killed after rebels took Hama last week, shortly before the regime fell.
Hamada was detained and tortured alongside tens of thousands of people after the 2011 uprising against Assad’s rule. “Mazen had endured torture so cruel, so unimaginable, that his retellings carried an almost otherworldly weight. When he spoke, it was as if he stared into the face of death itself, pleading with the angel of mortality for just a little more time,” wrote Hamada’s friend, the photographer and director Sakir Khader. He “became one of the most important witnesses against Assad’s regime”, he said.
The Syrian network for human rights (SNHR) recorded 15,102 deaths caused by torture in prisons run by the regime between March 2011 and July this year. It said 100,000 more people were missing and thought to be detained, and some might be found now that prison populations have been set free.
Fadel Abdulghany, the head of SNHR, which tracks people who have been “forcibly disappeared”, broke down on live television this week as he said that all 100,000 people had probably “died under torture” in prison.
Hamada was released in 2013 and granted asylum in the Netherlands in 2014, after which he began touring western capitals, bringing audiences to tears as he showed them his scars and described what he had endured at the hands of the Syrian authorities. Then, in a decision that terrified and confused his friends and rippled through the community of dissident exiles, Hamada disappeared in early 2020 after seemingly deciding to return to Syria.
That someone who had experienced the worst of Syria’s torture chambers would choose to return led many to believe he was enticed to do by elements of Assad’s regime to prevent him from speaking out.
Rebel forces said they found 40 corpses piled in the morgue at Sednaya showing signs of torture, with an image circulating online showing Hamada among them.
The discovery of his body indicated he was probably killed shortly before prison inmates were liberated by insurgents. Khader described his friend’s suffering as “the unimaginable agony of a man who had risen from the dead to fight again, only to be condemned to a slow death in the west”.
The lawyer and independent legislator for the Maule region died at the age of 74, a victim of cancer. “She left attentive, fighting until the end, and her life leaves these marks that will not be erased,” wrote X Boric on her account, who highlighted her fight for citizen prerogatives in the country’s dark times.
Despite being pregnant, Bulnes, along with her husband Roberto Celedón, were arrested after the 1973 coup d’état and subjected to torture, after being accused of having links with the Revolutionary Left Movement. After living in exile in the Netherlands, they returned to the country and opened a law firm in the 1990s to help those who did not have access to justice due to their lack of financial resources.
“Our Mercedes Bulnes has passed away, but she leaves behind in all of us who knew her a beautiful memory of life and struggle. Always a loving and fierce defender of human rights,” said the government spokesperson, Camila Vallejo.
The Frente Amplio party expressed its sorrow for the death of its colleague, whom it described as an “example of commitment and work for justice.”
In El Salvador, the suspects in the murder of four Dutch journalists will finally stand trial 42 years after the fact. The former Salvadorian Minister of Defense and two army officers will appear in court, NOS reports. See
Justice & Peace Netherlands is launching its new call for applications for human rights defenders at risk to participate in Shelter City Netherlands. The deadline for applications is 28 February 2024 . Shelter City is a global movement of cities, organizations and people who stand side by side with human rights defenders at risk. Shelter City provides temporary safe and inspiring spaces for human rights defenders at risk where they re-energize, receive tailor-made support and engage with allies. The term ‘human rights defender’ is intended to refer to the broad range of activists, journalists and independent media professionals, scholars, writers, artists, lawyers, civil and political rights defenders, civil society members, and others working to advance human rights and democracy around the world in a peaceful manner. From June and September 2024 onwards, several cities in the Netherlands will receive human rights defenders for a period of three months. At the end of their stay in the Netherlands, participants are expected to return with new tools and energy to carry out their work at home.
Application forms must be submitted by 28 February 2024. An independent commission will select the participants. Note that selected human rights defenders will not automatically participate in Shelter City as Justice & Peace is not in control of issuing the required visas to enter the Netherlands. For more information, please contact us at info[@]sheltercity.org.
On 14 December 2023, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the 2023 Human Rights Tulip has been awarded to Hülya Gülbahar, a feminist attorney from Türkiye and founder of the Equality Watch Women’s Group (EŞİTİZ) and the Women’s Platform for Equality Türkiye (EŞİK). Minister of Foreign Affairs Hanke Bruins Slot presented the prize on 14 December at a ceremony in the Peace Palace.
In her speech, Ms Bruins Slot said: ‘Human rights are among the most important resources we have at our disposal to tackle the major problems of our time, such as war, poverty and climate change. ..The nominees for the Human Rights Tulip understand this at a profound level. Through their tireless efforts, these human rights defenders make a real difference for people and society.’
EŞİTİZ and EŞİK publish legal analyses of legislative bills and amendments on feminist and LGBTIQ+ issues, conduct awareness-raising campaigns (for example on the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence) and promote social mobilisation by the Turkish feminist movement.
‘For more than 40 years,’ Ms Bruins Slot said, ‘Hülya Gülbahar has been defending women’s rights and fighting injustice in Türkiye. She does so using her extensive legal expertise and through her influential network, comprised primarily of women, which is too extensive to ignore. And she has been very successful at it.
Other finalists
The two other finalists for the 2023 Human Rights Tulip were:
Julienne Baseke is a journalist and human rights defender who fights for women’s rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). As a journalist, Ms Baseke founded the South Kivu Women’s Media Association (AFEM), which aims to enhance women’s visibility and participation in the DRC media.
Claudelice dos Santos is a human rights and environmental activist in the Amazon region. She is the founder of the Zé Claudio e Maria Institute, whose shelter and protection house provides a safe haven for indigenous land, environmental and human rights defenders.
Justice & Peace Netherlands is launching a new call for applications for human rights defenders at risk to participate in Shelter City. The deadline for applications is 14 September 2023 at 23:59 CEST. Shelter City is a global movement of cities, organizations and people who stand side by side with human rights defenders at risk. Shelter City provides temporary safe and inspiring spaces for human rights defenders at risk where they re-energise, receive tailormade support and engage with allies.
Justice & Peace aims to promote the safety of journalists, and in particular women journalists, worldwide so that they can build new strategies and continue their important work for freedom of expression in their country of origin. With support from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Justice & Peace will be able to provide two additional temporary safe spaces per year in The Hague for journalists at risk and provide them with tailor-made support.
To apply for Shelter City, use the online application form below. Application forms must be submitted by 14 September 2023. An independent commission will select the participants.
Note that selected human rights defenders will not automatically participate in Shelter City as Justice & Peace is not in control of issuing the required visas to enter the Netherlands.
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 