Members of the 2024 cohort of our Global South Defenders program.
This opportunity allows human rights defenders from countries in the Global South who are in emergency or high-risk situations to develop their projects and participate in an academic and cultural exchange in a safe space.
The fellowship will begin in the second semester of 2025.
Who is eligible to be part of the program?
We seek human rights defenders from the Global South who meet the following criteria:
They come from an emergency or high-risk context. This includes regions affected by armed conflict, civil unrest, or authoritarian regimes, where there is an imminent threat to the security of the grantee. This may involve situations where the grantee and/or their organization have been subjected to threats, intimidation, or populist propaganda, or where they have been excluded from funding due to government or private sector influence.
The grantee may be at risk of burnout and is seeking a quiet place to continue working on human rights issues, but in a different context.
They belong to human rights organizations in the Global South that are interested in engaging in exchanges and joint research or advocacy work with Dejusticia.
They aim to build lasting relationships with other fellows and with Dejusticia. This ensures that our fellowships function as acceleration hubs for connections that will make the human rights movement more cohesive and impactful.
What will fellows receive from Dejusticia?
Dejusticia will cover travel expenses (visa, tickets) and provide a monthly stipend based on the fellow’s profile and experience. Although Dejusticia will offer support at the beginning of the process, including a two-week training period on applied research and on the fellow’s specific work, it is important to note that fellows will be responsible for managing their stipend to cover housing, transportation, and food expenses.
What are the commitments of the Global South Fellow?
The fellow will allocate their time at Dejusticia as follows:
Threats against investigative journalists are widely documented. According to UNESCO’s Observatory of Killed Journalists, 1,718 journalists have been killed since 1993. The Committee to Protect Journalists’ latest prison census found the number of jailed journalists hit a near-record high, with 320 reporters behind bars at the time of the count last December. Yet a lesser-known story is the increasing targeting of the lawyers representing them.
“Behind all those cases against journalists who have become household names — like Evan Gershkovich, Maria Ressa, and José Rubén Zamora — there are the often unseen lawyers representing them and taking remarkable risks to defend them,” Carolina Henriquez-Schmitz, director of TrustLaw, said at Trust Conference 2024. “[Lawyers] themselves are becoming the targets of a whole range of attacks.”
In recent years, threats have escalated. Azerbaijani lawyer Elchin Sadigov, and his client, journalist Avaz Zeynalli, were detained in 2022 while officers searched their homes and offices and seized confidential case files. Vo An Don, a Vietnamese human rights lawyer who represented a dissident blogger was disbarred in 2018 and subsequently sought political asylum in the US. Dmitry Talantov, a lawyer who represented Russian investigative journalist Ivan Safronov in 2021, now himself faces up to 15 years in prison on a number of charges.
“It sends an unequivocal message, not just to the individual lawyer, but to the entire legal profession,” Henriquez-Schmitz said. “If you pursue these cases, we will go after you. The potential chilling effect cannot be understated.”
Human rights lawyer Vo An Don was disbarred and forced to seek political asylum in the US after the Vietnamese government targeted him for representing a dissident blogger. Image: Screenshot, Facebook
The Thomson Reuters Foundation, in partnership with the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights and Media Defence, conducted a first-of-its-kind review of individual cases of harassment or persecution of lawyers defending journalists. The recently published preliminary findings identified over 40 cases of lawyers being targeted in four ways: criminal and other suits; interference with their ability to represent their clients; targeting their ability to practice the profession; and threatened killing, physical harm, forced flight, or exile, and other similar persecution.
“The research has identified cases in Vietnam, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Azerbaijan, Iran, Yemen, Tajikistan, Russia, China, and Hong Kong, to name a few. Unsurprisingly, many of these countries also happen to be among the world’s worst jailers of journalists,” Henriquez-Schmitz noted. “The damage greatly reverberates. Without lawyers, journalists are unable to adequately defend themselves against retaliatory charges, and citizens are likely left less informed on matters of public interest.”
José Carlos Zamora, chief communications and impact officer at Exile Content Studio and the son of Guatemalan investigative journalist José Rubén Zamora, joined the Trust Conference panel only a few days after his father’s release to house arrest. Previously, his father had spent more than 800 days in prison on charges of alleged money laundering. The elder Zamora founded elPeriódico, a now-defunct newspaper which specialized in government corruption investigations.
“It’s a great step forward, but it’s not the end of the process,” Zamora said of his father’s transition to house arrest. “These repressive regimes, everywhere from Russia, to the Philippines, to Hong Kong, to Venezuela and Nicaragua, use the same tactics. And you see them copy from each other’s punishments, and one of these tactics is attacking the legal defense. So they go after the lawyers, and the main goal is to leave the journalists defenseless.”
Guatemalan journalist José Rubén Zamora, who founded the elPeriódico site that dug into the country’s political corruption, recently spent more than 800 days in prison on alleged money laundering charges. Image: Shutterstock
In all, 10 lawyers represented Zamora, and all of them were persecuted and eventually forced to abandon the case. Many of them did not appear to have access to the case file, and one lawyer, Christian Ulate, had to leave Guatemala after ongoing harassment and intimidation. The lawyers that took over the case after Ulate, Romeo Montoya García and Mario Castañeda, were detained, and Castañeda was sent to a maximum security prison. Lawyers Juan Francisco Solórzano Foppa and Justino Brito Torres were also arrested.
“At that point, the only defense was the public legal defense. There were some great lawyers in the public legal defense, but unfortunately, they are also part of the system,” Zamora explained. “At one point, none of the lawyers could visit him in prison. So everything was done through us. They could rarely talk. The ones that could go did not want to visit him because it was dangerous for them.”In some countries, human rights attorney Caoilfhionn Gallagher said, even the act of talking to an international lawyer can put local lawyers at risk.
María Consuelo Porras has acted as Guatemala’s attorney general since 2018. In 2022, she was barred from entering the US due to involvement in significant corruption, and in 2023 she was named OCCRP’s Person of the Year in Organized Crime and Corruption, for “brutally persecuting honest prosecutors, journalists, and activists,” the group wrote. “Porras and her kind are the new banal faces of evil.”
“[Porras] became the best tool to persecute opposition, critical voices,” Zamora said. “Because they use this special prosecutor’s office that is focused on organized crime […] it allows them to have you in pre-trial detention. That prosecutor’s office was intended to investigate and prosecute the heads of drug cartels and mob bosses. And now they use it to go after journalists.”
Irish-born attorney Caoilfhionn Gallagher specializes in international human rights and civil liberties at Doughty Street Chambers in London. Her cases often involve working closely with domestic lawyers around the world, in order to hold the state to account on the global stage. In some countries, Gallagher said, even the act of talking to an international lawyer can put local lawyers at risk.
“When I deal with cases involving Iran, for example, or Egypt, even engaging with an international lawyer, being privy to a complaint going to the United Nations, could result in [local lawyers] themselves being charged with a whole range of things, including national security-type offenses,” she noted. One particular example she gives of lawyer oppression is the Philippines, where, in total, 63 lawyers were killed during President Rodrigo Duterte’s six-year term, and 22 journalists. “So this is completely a tactic,” Gallagher warned. “You try to leave nobody able to speak truth to power.”
One of Gallagher’s clients is 76-year-old publisher, writer, and prominent pro-democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai. A British national, Lai has been in solitary confinement in a maximum security Hong Kong prison for almost four years, on charges of breaching national security and colluding with foreign forces. His newspaper, Apple Daily — the most popular Chinese language paper in Hong Kong — supported pro-democracy protests in the region. He now faces life imprisonment.
“Being called an enemy of the people, hit pieces in Chinese state media, formal statements from the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities threatening to prosecute us,” Gallagher said, reflecting on the implications of representing Lai. “But as well as that, we get physical threats, rape threats, and dismemberment threats, and it’s targeted in a way which is designed to try to undermine you doing your job.”“We coordinate pro bono for human rights defenders, and what we realized was that standing next to every defender facing criminalization was a lawyer also at risk.” — Ginna Anderson, associate director of the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights
On a key day in Lai’s case, Gallagher will wake up to notifications that there has been an attempt to hack her bank account, as well as her personal and professional email addresses. “I will also wake up to a whole series of […] threats, including things relating to my kids,” she continued. “I had a really vile message last week about my teenage daughter, by name, and it’s unpleasant.”
Gallagher says that, despite attacks, she will continue to represent reporters. “You’re rattling the right cages,” she said. “It’s designed to try to stop you doing your job, and for me, it makes me think if they care this much about the lawyers for Jimmy Lai based in London, doing work in Geneva, New York, and Dublin, just think about how much they hate my clients. And to be honest, it makes me more determined to stick with it.”
Associate director of the American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights, Ginna Anderson, emphasized the lack of current research into the growing threats against lawyers defending journalists, citing it as a driving force behind their work. “We realized no one was really talking about it, and the data wasn’t being collected,” she explained. “We coordinate pro bono for human rights defenders, and what we realized was that standing next to every defender facing criminalization was a lawyer also at risk and asking for none of those resources for themselves.”
While networks often operate to support journalists who are being subjected to physical threats, cyberattacks, and forced exile, Anderson emphasized the ad hoc nature of the support available to lawyers — in part due to the recent escalation in cases. “There’s not one place we go and coordinate,” she said. “It’s a lot of personal relationships and knowing who has capacity, and quite frankly there’s very little capacity in any of these places to really deal with the scale of the problem.”
“Just like journalists don’t want to be part of the story, lawyers don’t, and many other trends are mirrored,” she continued. “One thing that struck me […] was this perception that safety of journalist networks are so much better connected and resourced than anything to support lawyers. That terrified me because I think we all think that there’s not enough being done for the safety of journalists.”
“Lawyers are often trusted voices, just like some legacy media establishments,” Anderson said. “They’re trusted voices on the rule of law. They’re trusted voices on the Constitution. And when you disparage them and smear them, and in some cases make it criminal for them to talk about these issues, you have silenced one of the most important voices.”
Defending Lawyers Protecting Journalists
As attacks on lawyers rise, the panel reflected on the ways in which those representing journalists can defend themselves. Increasing knowledge of cybersecurity — which may not have previously been a priority for lawyers — is essential, Gallagher said. “In the last number of years working on cases against Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia, I’ve been very surprised by [top-ranked multinational law firms] trying to send you something on Google Docs,” she continued. “The media organization and the journalists will have really good protocols, but then when they get into some kind of difficulty, they may instruct an external lawyer who simply doesn’t.”
Law societies and governments also have a responsibility to take such threats more seriously, Gallagher says, reflecting on the case of Pat Finucane, a Northern Irish human rights lawyer who was murdered in his home in 1989. The UK government only announced a public inquiry into his death in 2024, 35 years later. “That is a home example of these issues simply not being taken seriously enough,” she said. “I can tell you basic preventative strategies were simply not implemented here in Britain.”
Another issue is a lack of psychological support for lawyers, Anderson says. “I’ve been surprised how often a conversation about digital security becomes the place where a lawyer may talk about what’s weighing on their mind,” she continued. “[They’re] not saying, ‘I would like to talk about my psychosocial needs’, but they start with a practical need around digital security, and it finds its way into the things that are weighing on them.”
As Zamora reflected on the future for his father, he seemed hopeful. “He’s excited. He’s very happy. He feels like he’s at a spa after spending those 813 days in an isolation cell,” he said. “We are going to continue fighting these processes. They are really spurious charges, and we are going to fight until the end to demonstrate that everything is false.”
While he says that his father’s trial has exposed the worst in humanity, through Guatemala’s political persecution of those standing up for democracy and freedom, Zamora also believes that it has brought out the best in humanity, too. “I feel that’s everybody in this room,” he concluded. “You care about these issues, you are doing the work, and you can continue to do the work to keep these cases alive.”
Emily O’Sullivanis an editorial assistant at GIJN. She has worked as an investigative researcher for BBC Panorama, and an assistant producer for BBC Newsnight. She has an MA in Investigative Journalism from City, University of London.
On July 1, 2024 AI published the findings of a survey which says that three out of five child and young human rights defenders face online harassment in connection with their activism, according to a new analysis of 400 responses to an Amnesty International questionnaire, distributed to young activists across 59 countries. More than 1400 young activists participated in the survey conducted as a part of Amnesty International’s global campaign to “Protect the Protest.”
Of those, 400 youth activists aged between 13 to 24 years agreed to the publication of their data.
They faced harassment in the form of hateful comments, threats, hacking and doxing which is often linked to offline abuse and political persecution often perpetrated by state actors with little or no response from Big Tech platforms resulting in the silencing of young people.
The highest rates of online harassment were reported by young activists in Nigeria and Argentina.
“I have been harassed […] by a stranger because of my pronouns. The stranger told me it is not possible to be a ‘they/them’ and kept sending messages about how I am crazy for identifying the way I identify. I had to ignore the person’s messages,” said a 17-year-old Nigerian queer LGBTI activist who asked not to be identified.
Another young activist – 21-year-old male Nigerian LBGTI rights activist said, “People disagree with my liberal progressive views, and immediately check my profile to see that I am queer Nigerian living in Nigeria, and they come at me with so much vitriol. I am usually scared to share my opinion on apps like TikTok because I can go viral. The internet can be a very scary place,” he said adding that, “Someone cat fishing as a gay man, lured me into coming out to see him after befriending me for a while, and then he attacked me with his friends. This is Nigeria, I couldn’t go to the police for secondary victimization.”
Twenty-one percent of respondents say they are trolled or threatened on a weekly basis and close to a third of the young activists say that they have censored themselves in response to tech-facilitated violence, with a further 14 percent saying they have stopped posting about human rights and their activism altogether.
“I always think twice before making a comment, when I express my political position, I start to get many comments that not only have to do with my position, but also with my body, my gender identity or my sexuality,” said Sofía*, a 23-year-old human rights defender from Argentina shared her experience on X formerly known as Twitter.
The survey respondents said they faced the most abuse on Facebook, with 87 percent of the platform’s users reporting experiences of harassment, compared to 52 percent on X and 51 percent on Instagram.
The most common forms of online harassment are upsetting and disrespectful “troll” comments (60 percent) and upsetting or threatening direct messages (52 percent).
Five percent of the young activists say they have faced online sexual harassment, too, reporting that users posted intimate images (including real and AI-generated images) of them without consent.
For many of the survey participants harassment in relation to their online activism is not limited to the digital world either. Almost a third of respondents reported facing offline forms of harassment, from family members and people in their personal lives to negative repercussions in school, police questioning and political persecution.
Twenty-year-old non-binary activist Aree* from Thailand shared their experience of facing politically motivated prosecution in five different cases whilst they were still a child.
Abdul* a 23-year-old Afghan activist reported being denied work at a hospital after authorities found out about his social media activism.
The Israel-Gaza war currently stands out as an issue attracting high levels of abusive online behaviour, but the threat of online harassment appears to be omnipresent across all leading human rights issues. Peace and security, the rule of law, economic and gender equality, social and racial justice, and environmental protection all served as “trigger topics” for the attacks.
However, the way young activists are targeted varies and appears to be closely linked to intersectional experiences of discrimination, likely harming survivors of identity-based abuse in longer lasting ways than issue-based harassment.
Twenty-one percent of respondents say they have been harassed in connection with their gender and twenty percent in connection with their race or ethnicity. Smaller percentages said they face abuse in connection with their socio-economic background, age, sexual orientation and/or disabilities.
“At first it was simply hateful comments since the posts I published were daring and spoke openly about LGBT rights, which later made me receive threats in private messages and it went further when my account was hacked,” said Paul a 24-year-old activist from Cameroon, on being targeted for his LGBTI related activism adding that, “For 2 years, I have been living in total insecurity because of the work I do as an advocate for the rights of my community online.”
For Paul and many other young activists, online harassment is having deep effects on their mental health. Forty percent of the respondents say they have felt a sense of powerlessness and nervousness or are afraid of using social media. Some respondents have even felt unable to perform everyday tasks and felt physically unsafe. Accordingly, psychological support is the most popular form of support which young activists call for, ahead of easier to use reporting mechanisms and legal support.
Many of the young activists voiced frustrations over leading social media platforms’ failure to adequately respond to their reports of harassment saying the abusive comments are left on the platforms long after being flagged.
Some respondents also felt that social media platforms are playing an active part in silencing them; multiple activists reported that they found posts about the war in Gaza removed, echoing previous reports of content advocating for Palestinian rights being subject to potentially discriminatory moderation by various platforms.
Others highlighted platforms’ role in enabling state-led intimidation and censorship campaigns, undermining activists’ hope for government regulation to provide answers to the challenge of tech-facilitated violence.
On 6 July 2023 Janika Spannagel in Open Global Rights comes with a study of great importance to the work for human rights defenders. The researcher states that “focusing only on defenders’ physical integrity risks undermining the very idea of supporting agents of human rights change” and that there is a need to Rethink campaigns on human rights defenders
Instead of summarising I will provide large quotes:
,,,,The theory of change put forward by actors, including Front Line Defenders, International Service for Human Rights, and many others, claims that by protecting local human rights activists, international campaigns can support them in their work to advance human rights protection on the ground. This assumption appears plausible and aligns with prominent accounts in academic human rights literature, where domestic activists’ protection from repression is seen as a way to open spaces for them to challenge the regime and enact change.
That said, empirical evidence from UN casework and the experience of Tunisian defenders shows that this promise has not been fulfilled when it comes to human rights defenders in authoritarian regimes, as I show in my recent book. There, I argue that, while international attention can have important protective benefits, it does little to support individual human rights defenders as agents of change in repressive contexts. [Emphasis added]
The reason for this is that international casework on defenders, including urgent action–like campaigns or UN communications, maintain the traditional focus on physical integrity rights that has guided the long-standing casework on political imprisonment, torture, or enforced disappearances. In doing so, it overlooks the many administrative, discursive, and covert forms of repression that typically bypass international scrutiny more broadly but that often very effectively disrupt and thwart defenders’ work toward change.
The analysis of over 12,000 individual cases of human rights activists taken up by the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders between 2000 and 2016 reveals that, in almost three-quarters of them, at least one of the violations described fell within the category of physical integrity violations. Detention cases alone made up 56% of all cases raised during that period. In contrast, only 4% of the cases dealt exclusively with softer types of repression, such as travel bans, bureaucratic issues, job dismissals, surveillance, or defamation.
This distribution far from represents the everyday experience of human rights defenders in authoritarian states—instead, it is reflective of a humanitarian instinct in human rights casework to privilege cases that are considered most severe. One could argue that UN communications, and perhaps attention-based campaigning more broadly, are inherently humanitarian, not transformative instruments. But one should ask: What, then, is the purpose of focusing on human rights defenders, as opposed to any victim of repression? [Emphasis added]
The priority given to physical integrity violations has two important adverse consequences. First, we can see that the data profoundly shape our understanding of what human rights defenders are struggling with. For example, on the basis of such data a CIVICUS report claims that in order to repress civic space, states resort “most often” to detention of activists, attacks against journalists, and excessive use of force against protesters. The human rights community’s own focus on violent repression thus paradoxically misleads us to believe that this is where most attention is needed.
Secondly, this focus reinforces a protection gap for violations that fall outside of the conventional notion of state repression as physically harmful and as undeniably politically motivated. Research on repression highlights that authoritarian states engage in repressive substitution, where they replace highly scrutinized coercive tactics—typically harder and overt types of repression—with softer and more covert measures. The case of Tunisia under Ben Ali aptly illustrates the strong impact of such tactics on defenders’ ability to carry out meaningful work.
When analyzing the further development of cases taken up by the UN, I also found that, while some positive effects of the UN’s attention could be identified for most of them, many did not see an actual improvement relative to the reported violations over the course of the next year; where they did, it was mostly an easing of harder repression. Ultimately, there is a real risk that governments continue to use hard repression to increase their bargaining power and then pass off a release from prison as a costly concession, while in reality imposing softer but equally effective measures against the activist in question.
With this problem in mind, what could be done differently? Casework that follows a transformative logic should not seek to maximize the reduction of physical harm—the humanitarian logic—but should define protection needs in terms of safeguarding a defender’s ability to do effective human rights work.
Those engaging in casework and campaigns on human rights defenders should actively revisit their priorities in terms of the violations they tend to address. Far too often, softer repression remains unreported, unnoticed, and not acted upon, which effectively creates a twilight zone in which authoritarian states can comfortably stifle opposition voices without risking much pushback. We owe it to the countless number of human rights activists around the world to ensure that the label of “human rights defender” does not merely serve to laud their heroism and excite donors and the media, but that it is dedicated to fulfilling its promise of human rights change.
Protection International Kenya (PIK) – a registered a non-governmental organization in Kenya with support from its headquarters in Belgium – seeks a Research Consultant for Protection strategies implemented by grassroots WHRDs Organizations. Closing date for applications 12 June 2020.
The research findings will be used for future capacity building of WHRDs, advocacy on the promotion and protection of WHRDs/HRDs at national, regional and global level and for dissemination purposes. PIK, with the support of Protection International Africa and Protection International Global, will publish the findings and disseminate among its partners, donors, government officials and all other stakeholders.
Recent research has shown that many human rights defenders are suffering PTSD, depression, and burnout as a result of the risks and stress of their work. Without adequate mental health support for activists, it could be difficult to sustain the human rights movement at a time when threats and risks of activism are increasing. How can funders take the wellbeing of activists into account through their funding? What are good practices to ensure that funders are doing no harm, and what are the options for actively supporting the resilience of activists to continue their work? Join the Human Rights Funders Network and Ariadne for a webinar on 20 September2019 10:00am EST to learn more about the findings of the research and hear from peer donors about their efforts to integrate an awareness of wellbeing into their work.
Speakers:
Adam Brown, Associate Professor of Psychology, New School for Social Research
Marianne Mollmann, Director of Regional Programs, Fund for Global Human Rights
Magda Adamowicz, Senior Program Specialist, Open Society Foundations
The webinar is co-sponsored by Human Rights Funders Network Ariadne and will be moderated by Julie Broome, Ariadne Director.
Brain research suggests emphasizing human rights abuses may perpetuate them
Laura Ligouriin Open Global Rights of 18 June 2019 writes about an aspect of campaiging that few human rights defenders and NGOs will be familiar with: “Capitalizing on the brain’s capacity to simulate events, messages of positive behavior – instead of repeated exposure to accounts of abuse – could better lead to the changes we wish to see in the world“. Laura Ligouri is the founder and director of Mindbridge, a not-for-profit organization connecting psychological and neurobiological insight to non-profit and government-sponsored humanitarian efforts. Here the piece in full:
Throughout the last few decades, much human rights work has necessarily sought to bring human rights abuses to light. But focusing only on abusive behaviour—without paying attention to its opposite—comes with a cost.
According to psychological and neurobiological research, repeated exposure to accounts of human rights abuses may inadvertently prime individuals to engage in the very acts we hope to eliminate; for example, repeated negative actions by some in a particular group come to be seen as normal behaviour for the group as a whole. As a result, activists must strike a balance between exposing abuses and demonstrating positive human rights-oriented behavior. By capitalizing on the brain’s capacity to mentalize and simulate events, messages of positive behavior could lead to the changes we wish to see in the world.
Some of the darkest moments in human history have their roots in the dehumanization of groups and people. If human rights activists can see what lies behind these trends, they can work to tackle the root causes and not just the symptoms of dehumanization. Research shows that many processes involved in dehumanization aren’t necessarily grounded in a lack of empathy for the victimized group. Instead, they are based in neurobiological mechanisms oriented around maintaining one’s own group at all costs. In fact, failures to promote positive, pro-social behavior might not rest in our ability to empathize with the “Other” but in the degree to which we identify and align with our own group.
Extreme human rights abuses often have their roots in powerful neurobiological mechanisms that lead humans to mirror or simulate what they see others in their group doing. Very recent research shows how repeated exposure to hate speech, such as repeatedly reading it on local media, could prime your brain to engage in hateful speech or even hateful actions.
For human rights defenders, this can become dangerous: every time an organization, news source or media outlet emphasizes and repeatedly highlights a form of human rights abuse, even to condemn it, we are simultaneously engaging a very specific component of the social brain that emphasises compliance with the norms of our own group. Over time, the social brain will justify these acts and will find ways to divest our group of responsibility.
Moreover, a landmark study in 2012 showed that feeling connected to a group not only creates disconnection from more distant “others”, but could directly lead to dehumanization of those communities. The experiments indicated that the more people feel socially connected to closely-knit groups, the less likely they are to attribute human mental states to distant others. They are also more likely to recommend harsh treatment for those distant others.
But is empathy the whole story? A great multitude of non-profit organizations worldwide have worked tirelessly to increase empathy between groups, albeit largely by raising awareness about the suffering of marginalized groups or asking people to walk in other people’s shoes. Yet failures to empathize with others happens all the time.
Research has shown that when presented with images of people in pain, activation of the parts of the brain where empathy resides was significantly less for strangers than for loved ones or people of the same race. Other tests show that it is easier to promote aggressive behavior in interactions between groups than between individuals. When social relations shift from “me versus you” to “us versus them”, human interactions tend to become substantially more aggressive.
For example, in one experiment researchers examined whether acting as a member of a competitive group, versus acting alone, would ultimately lead to increases in one’s willingness to harm competitors. Using functional magnetic resonant imaging, or fMRI, participants were asked to perform a competitive task, once alone and once within a group. These same participants were later asked to engage in an activity where they had an option to harm competitors from another group. Results showed reduced brain activation related to empathy and moral decision-making among participants acting within the group, compared to participants acting alone. This reduced activation was later linked to their willingness to harm a person in another group.
The warning for human rights activists is that suspending our sense of individualized morality in favor of group-based norms is among a series of influential factors leading to dehumanization. But how do we reverse concepts of dehumanization once they have already occurred? And if these processes are deeply embedded within unconscious, psychological and neurobiological mechanisms that have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, is it even possible to defuse and/or rewire them?
The answer is: we don’t have to. What would happen if we used our brain’s ability to mentally simulate an event where, instead of picturing or simulating hurting an individual, we imagined helping them? Researchers examined whether the same mechanisms that underlie processes related to empathy might also work to support the way in which our brain envisions the world, called episodic simulation. Their results showed that not only did the act of imagining helping increase participants’ actual intentions to help others, but also that the more vividly people could imagine a scenario, the more likely they were to help another.
These results have been replicated within the Mindbridge Implicit Bias Project, a series of trainings that capitalizes on the brain’s neuroplasticity in order change an individual’s relationship to bias and discrimination towards social groups over time.
Other research showed concretely the way in which positive episodic simulation coupled with capitalizing on the social brain can result in re-humanization of another group. Held in Israel, the researchers through a series of experiments asked Israeli-Jews to read about members of their group helping Palestinians. They found that Israeli-Jews who became aware about their group helping Palestinians showed greater humanization towards Palestinians.
The challenge for the human rights movement is to counter dehumanization that is seeded by group influence and images of human rights abuses with something different. By modelling the sort of behavior we want to see—kindness, caring and empathy—we can begin to re-humanize vulnerable groups.
If inhumanity can be learned, so can greater humanity. Understanding the brain may help us do just that.
The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has awarded academic Dr Azeem Ibrahim its 2019 Engaged Scholar Prize. Founded in 1994, the IAGS is a global, interdisciplinary, non-partisan organization that seeks to further research and teaching about the nature, causes, and consequences of genocide, and advance policy studies on genocide prevention.
Glasgow born Ibrahim has been recognized principally for his work on the genocide committed by the Myanmar state against the country’s Rohingya minority in his book “Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar’s Genocide (Hurst: 2016).” Ibrahim has also researched and written extensively on the impact of displaced populations including the Syrians, Uyghur Muslims and others. His publications have appeared in prominent media outlets like New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, Foreign Policy, CNN, Daily Telegraph, Yale Global, Dhaka Tribune and many others.
Dr Ibrahim is currently a Director at the Centre for Global Policy in Washington DC and is working on creating the Rohingya Genocide Archives which aims to investigate and document the crimes committed against the Rohingyas by Myanmar and create a databank that can then be used by scholars, historians, researchers and any possible future tribunals. Dr Ibrahim was one of a handful of scholars to foresee and warn of the impending genocide of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar in 2016, when the Myanmar military undertook a policy of ethnically cleansing over 700,000 Rohingyas, forcing them into Bangladesh which now houses the largest refugee camp in the world.
IAGS has since its formation presented awards to honor both innovations in and the engaged practice of genocide scholarship. In 2017, these awards were consolidated into four categories: the Emerging Scholar Prize; the Engaged Scholar Prize; the Prize for the Arts; and the IAGS Lifetime Achievement Award. These awards are presented at the IAGS biennial conference and celebrate individuals who make exemplary contributions to the field of genocide studies.
Ten European partner organizations announce an ambitious new initiative to be launched this September to support researchers at risk. The initiative – InSPIREurope – is a ten-partner project funded under the European Commission’s Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and coordinated by Scholars at Risk Europe at Maynooth University, Ireland.
InSPIREurope will forge a coordinated, cross-sectoral, Europe-wide alliance for researchers at risk. InSPIREurope project partners include: Scholars at Risk Europe, hosted at Maynooth University, Ireland (Project Coordinator) • Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, Germany • European University Association • Jagiellonian University, Poland • University of Oslo, Norway • University of Gothenburg, Sweden • PAUSE program, hosted by the Collège de France • Stichting voor Vluchteling-Studenten UAF, Netherlands • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece • Scholz CTC GmbH, Germany.
InSPIREurope begins from the view that excellence in research depends upon open scientific debate, and is driven by a multiplicity of ideas, cultures, people, and perspectives. When researchers are at risk and excluded from participating in the global research circuit, whether due to discrimination, persecution, suffering, or violence, not only are individual lives and careers at risk; the quality, the very future of research is also at stake. With record numbers of researchers at risk reaching out, there is no one country, government, NGO, or enterprise that can meet the scope of the challenge alone; an ambitious and concerted approach is required. Toward this goal, and in recognition of a shared commitment to excellence in research and to the principles of freedom of inquiry and academic freedom that are essential pre-conditions for world-class research, the InSPIREurope project will facilitate transnational cooperation between European and national initiatives and programs in support of researchers at risk. Further information, including project webpages, will be available when the project begins in September.
The Geneva Human Rights Platform (Geneva HRP), hosted by the Geneva Academy and supported by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, provides a dynamic forum in Geneva for all stakeholders in the field of human rights – experts, practitioners, diplomats and civil society – to discuss and debate topical issues and challenges. Relying on academic research and findings, the Geneva HRP aims at enabling various actors to become better connected, break down silos and, hence, advance human rights.
‘The objective is to foster interactions and discussions on topical issues and challenges through regular events, conferences, expert roundtables and private meetings’ stresses Felix Kirchmeier, Director of Policy Studies at the Geneva Academy. ‘The Geneva HRP aims to increase sharing, exchange and collaboration among different actors by means of its independent, neutral and academic status’ adds Robert Roth, Director of the Geneva Academy.
The Geneva HRP is up and running since the beginning of the year, but now has a dedicated online presence, on the Geneva Academy website, which provides information about activities, events and related research.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 