The Hague Institute for Global Justice

Fact-finding and building blocks for programming

The Hague, The Netherlands City of Peace and Justice Table of Contents

Summary p. 03

Part I | Introduction p. 07

Part II | The Parameters and the Approach p. 10 1. The Parameters p. 11 2. The Approach p. 12 3. Sources of information p. 13

Part III | The Hague DNA and Trends p. 14 1. The Hague DNA p. 15 2. Trends P. 16 3. Combining DNA and Trends p. 17

Part IV | Towards Global Justice p. 18 1. Substantive elements p. 19 2. Methods and substance p. 23 3. Partnerships p. 25 4. Summarizing p. 30

Part V | Five proposed Focus Areas for partnerships p. 31 1. Focus Area/partnership 1 | Towards ´fact-based´ justice: Verifying methods p. 34 and testing assumptions 2. Focus Area/partnership 2 | Conflict zones: Integrating security, justice p. 38 and development perspectives 3. Focus Area/partnership 3 | Courts and conflict mechanisms: towards examples p. 42 of excellence 4. Focus Area/partnership 4 | Making promises stick: compliance with self-regulation p. 47 and human rights 5. Focus Area/partnership 5 | Growing justice bottom up: models for institutions p. 50

Part VI | Conclusions p. 54 Annex 1 | Concrete results in the pipeline/knowledge gaps p. 57 Annex 2 | Others Ideas considered p. 58 Annex 3 | Comments received and processed p. 61 Annex 4 | Great gifts received during the process that made us silent p. 68 Annex 5 | Thank you … for … p. 69 Annex 6 | Consultation List p. 71

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 1

Preface

Between September and November 2010 a unique process took place in The Hague in which 150 people intensively interacted with a view to bringing out the core of what 'the Hague' can offer the world in the field of peace and justice within the context of the newly established Hague Institute for Global Justice(HIGJ). The results of the interactive process are presented in this report.

It is written by the Commission established by the Interim Steering Board of the HIGJ in order to give guidance to this process. It consisted of Sam Muller, Jouke de Vries, and Maurits Barendrecht and had the task to explore building blocks for a draft substantive programme for the Institute on the basis of which the International Dean (to be appointed) can further develop the final programming.

Sergey Vasiliev provided invaluable research and drafting support during the process. The Commission further received hugely valuable assistance and support from Karen van Stegeren, Ed Maan, Carsten Stahn, Evelien van Hoeve and Karen Russel, for which it is very grateful. The report could also not have been written without the many contributions that were received, orally and in written form, from the people that were part of the interactive process that lies at the heart of this report. To all participants and contributors, whose joint input and collective wisdom is built on many, many years of experience in the rule of law and justice sector in The Hague and far beyond, a warm wor of thanks is owed. The Commission worked closely with board of the Hague Academic Coalition and the staff from its member Institutions and is grateful for that excellent cooperation. Finally, the Commission would like to thank Mayor Jozias van Aartsen, Annet Bertram and the project team of the HIGJ for the tremendous work they have put into getting the HIGJ as far as it is now and for giving us the space and support to do our work.

Given all the input and support, the report and its contents remain the sole responsibility of the Commission

The Hague, February 2011

Sam Muller Maurits Barendrecht Jouke de Vries Director HiiL Professor of Private Law Professor of Public Administration Hague Institute for the Tilburg University at Leiden University in Leiden Internationalisation of Law and Scientific Director of Leiden - University Campus The Hague

2

Summary

 Making justice more quantifiable and qualifiable and,

with that,

 building better conflict resolution mechanisms.

This proposal for building blocks for the substantive programme of the Hague Institute for Global Justice (HIGJ) is based on the Mission of the HIGJ as contained in the founding project document and the terms of reference provided to the Commission. It was written in the course of an interactive process with over 150 stakeholders.

In line with these parameters, the report contains a description of the general „The Hague‟ knowledge base which can form the foundation for the work of the HIGJ, concrete areas in which „quick wins‟ on highly relevant areas can be achieved, all connected to demand and opportunities for further funding.

The stakeholder consultation involved experts and institutions – national and international, academia and practice – from the The Hague “global justice cluster” (i.e. law/justice, in relation to safety/security and social and economic development). In accordance with the terms of reference, the programming process was directed at exploring concrete options for strategic alliances/partnerships that contribute to the objectives of the HIGJ to (i) stimulate innovation and coherence; (ii) bring together international demand and best, most innovative expertise in the world; (iii) build global networks on the highest level, aimed at innovation and valorization.

Stakeholders identified demand for an Institute in The Hague that focuses on what works in conflict resolution mechanisms as a means to achieve justice for all people concerned.

This, in two steps: (i) quantify and qualify as clearly as possible what justice is and (ii), based on that, build, develop better conflict resolution institutions and processes. In one of the workshops, this was worded as “an institute that helps make clear whether justice is done, is seen to be done, and is felt to be done” and which, on that basis, can improve and build effective justice mechanisms. The current report contains the building blocks for four promising strategic partnerships, based on needs, expertise and cooperation that is already there or potentially there.

The report reaches four overall conclusions:

 Putting the notion of justice at the core of the new Institute makes good sense. It is not being done anywhere else in this way. And it complements efforts elsewhere in which notions such as „peace‟ (for example, the Global Peace Index), „rule of law‟ (for example, the World Justice Project), and „good governance‟ (for example, the World Bank) are quantified and qualified with a view to developing better peace, rule of law, and governance.

 The seven assessment criteria from the terms of reference provided to the Commission are very good and tremendously valuable as an organising foundation;

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 3

 The partnership approach, suggested by the terms of reference is the best approach, also given the requirement to generate value added. In these partnerships excellent research groups join forces with diplomats, courts and NGO‟s, co-developing examples of excellent conflict mechanisms, using justice as a benchmark.

 There are four substantive areas in which the new Institute can make a difference, which correspond to embryonic partnerships, and which provide a good horizon to quick wins and medium term results. These substantive areas complement and re-enforce each other and have high potential for putting the new Institute in a leadership position with relative speed.

The substantive areas are the following:

1. First is the challenge of peace-building in conflict zones. International lawyers, security experts and social scientists will team up with politicians, international officials and diplomats. Their aim will be to make transparent to what extent peace treaties and security measures will be deemed fair by all concerned: fighting factions, as well as their victims; politicians, as well as citizens; local leaders, as well as the men and women they lead. Besides adequate deterrence, stabilization and opportunities for evenly shared economic growth, people expect from peace building arrangements that they promote restorative justice and distributive justice in the form of appropriate compensation. Making these justice needs measurable and quantifiable will be an important goal of this partnership, leading to systematic improvements in peace-building efforts. The partnership will identify what works in peace-building, taking a justice perspective, and develop creative new mechanisms for sharing responsibility and being more effective. Another element will be the training of justice ambassadors, diplomats who can bring forward justice needs at the negotiation tables.

2. A second partnership will join researchers from many different disciplines and practitioners at courts in order to create the most effective examples of dispute resolution mechanisms, including in post conflict situations. Courts are crucial conflict mechanisms of last resort. They also supervise settlements and mediation efforts, set examples how to deal with conflict and provide an exit option from negotiations. Litigation may become a problem in itself, however. Many courts are overburdened and struggle with high costs and long delays, so striving for examples of great courts is a major challenge. Hopefully, one of the international courts in The Hague will become part of this venture. A focal point in this partnership will be the impact of trials of leaders on those who have suffered injustices. Victimologists will work with judges; specialists in restorative justice with experts in the field of international criminal procedure; court administrators with economists working on courts and litigation.

3. With multinational companies, environmental groups, human rights lawyers and the local populations, a third partnership will be formed. This will work on strengthening local dispute mechanisms in settings where major investments take place (mining, major plants, infrastructure, major housing projects). Such investments affect work relationships, housing, farming, land rights, human rights, the environment and can cause corruption and other major disruptions in social life. Conflicts about scarce resources and revenues are likely to ensue as well, and may even lead to war. Tools for mapping these (potential) conflicts and the (justice) needs around them have to be developed. The mechanisms for settling these conflicts are complex and have to be embedded in a well structured relationship between investor, local communities and other stakeholders.

4

4. A fourth partnership will cater to the justice needs of individuals. People working on land, investing in the housing for their children, or building up a company with their family members need to be sure that they can profit from their investments. Mechanisms for solving property disputes, dealing with inheritance and divorce in families, and holding government agents accountable are essential for economic and human development, as the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor has pointed out. The partnership will link NGO‟s working on human rights and legal aid with legal anthropologists, law and development specialists, dispute system designers, sociologists of law specialized in paths to justice and experts in civil procedure. One of the major challenges here is the sheer number of conflicts that have to be resolved. Integrating legal procedures with modern conflict resolution know how provides a challenge and an opportunity. An open, reflexive approach, where norms from different sources can be discussed and co-exist as possible guidelines for decisions, holds the promise of becoming a best practice. New ways to deal with legal pluralism have to be developed, joining negotiation theorists and The Hague‟s experts on private international law. The ultimate test can again be how the parties rate procedures and outcomes on the different facets of justice.

These partnerships are interlinked and complement each other. Legal empowerment for individuals is a key element in the larger process of post conflict nation building. If people can be given „voice‟ they are more likely to embrace nation building processes. If courts are set up without taking into account that there are people who legally do not exist, they lose credibility and effectiveness, thus undermining the rule of law. Effective courts can that can work with this reality can, on the other hand, also be an important vehicles for change. Involving private enterprise as effective actors in the rule of law can reinforce the social fabric, which can be of great important in nation building processes.

The partnerships proposed in this report will each link 10 to maybe 20 world class, highly specialized research groups. These researchers will closely cooperate with 10 to 50 organizations from the justice sector, NGO‟s and local organizations across the globe that have a stake in these conflict mechanisms. These can coordinate the demand for knowledge and with them the knowledge will be co-developed. Partnerships will work towards real impact and measurable results in 1 and 3 years. After a process of setting priorities within the focus area, tasks will have to be divided, and procedures have to be developed to generate an evidence base that can be shared by the partners and beyond. Each of these proposed partnerships will have the size (indication of value of the activities: gradually growing towards 10 to 25 million € per year each) and the expertise to provide major breakthroughs in its focal area. Thus, they will be attractive for major donors and social venture capitalists.

The method that was discerned from the consultation process is to make progress towards more justice through incremental steps, as Amartya Sen has argued. Essential is providing an open, safe environment, in which all perspectives relating to a specific topic can be shared, and discussed passionately, always exploring carefully what explains a particular view, researching consequences, and publishing results in a non-judgmental way,not choosing sides, leaving it to those feeling responsible to take action. Thus HIGJ would connect and bridge at the core, being a facilitator of knowledge, rather than an ultimate source, a role that fits with what the Commission calls „The Hague‟s DNA‟, the role it historically has played in contributing to global justice.

The work within the partnerships will be facilitated by innovations which are expected to come from the pipeline of interdisciplinary research shortly. These are models for conflict resolution mechanisms, mechanisms for sharing responsibilities, methods for measuring the different facets of justice, methods to map the justice needs and justice perspectives of all persons concerned and methods for neutrally mapping the facts and all other elements of complex, multi-stakeholder disputes that are relevant for their resolution. A fifth partnership is indentified to further develop these methods, which can be used throughout the work of the other four partnerships, yielding feed-back on the tools that can help to make transparent whether justice is done, seen to be done, and felt to be done.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 5

With their education programs and their platforms for interaction and advice, the knowledge institutes in The Hague and those connected with them provide an open space for reflection and dialogue about justice needs and their relationship to peace, security, economic and social development, and governance. In this they will take part in and facilitate the partnerships with their services, build innovative education programs on the basis of the knowledge produced, and will be essential for the valorization of this knowledge.

The values of the HIGJ, and the way the organization lives these values, would be crucial. The more than 150 people contributing to this programming document provided the inspiration. The challenge is now to mobilize the 99% transpiration that innovation experts always speak of when they describe how to get from great ideas to practical outcomes.

6

Part I | Introduction

FactThe Hague-finding Institute and buildingfor Global blocksJustice for programming 7

1. This initial programming proposal is a step in the process of establishing the Hague Institute for Global Justice (hereafter HIGJ). Initial funding for the HIGJ has been secured (€17 million), a basic legal infrastructure has been designed and world leaders have shown interest to become involved. Against this background, the Interim Steering Board of the HIGJ established a Commission to elaborate a draft substantive programme for the Institute, on the basis of which the International Dean can further develop the final programming.

2. The foundations and parameters for the writing of this report consisted of:

a. The Mission of the HIGJ as worded in the Project Plan HIGJ, provided to the Commission; b. The Terms of Reference provided to the Commission by the Interim Steering Group; c. The “Indicatieve Parameters Inhoudelijk Traject HIGJ” dated 27 May 2011, provided to the Interim Steering Group by Sam Muller.

3. The Terms of Reference provided that the programming proposal should:

a. be based on the mission; b. connect sufficiently to demand and opportunities for further funding; c. fully involve experts and institutions – national and international, academia and practice - from the Hague “global justice cluster” (i.e. law/justice, in relation to safety/security and social and economic development); and d. take into consideration and be directed at exploring concrete options for strategic alliances/partnerships that contribute to the objectives of the HIGJ to (i) stimulate innovation and coherence; (ii) bring together international demand and best, most innovative expertise in the world; (iii) build global network on highest level, aimed at innovation and valorization.

4. The month of September 2010 is really the month when widespread substantive engagement with the idea for the HIGJ really started. As will become apparent when reading, the process of writing this report in many ways took on the character of a fact finding mission. Guided by over 150 people that were consulted during a hugely interactive process, together representing at least 1000 of years of experience and high level expertise in the global justice sector, the Commission brought together facts and building blocks for the programme of the Institute.

5. The Commission would like to thank all participants in the process which has unfolded over the past eight weeks. The ideas have been overwhelming in number, hugely inspiring in what they represent, and surprisingly congruent as a whole. There appears to be more communality in ideas for global justice than we initially thought! All the ideas that came up have been sourced and are included in the Annexes to this document.

8

6. The report is built up as follows:

a. Firstly, a short summary of the programming proposal is provided (Part II). b. After this, in Part II, the approach taken by the Commission is described, as well as the sources of information used. c. In Part III, the Commission explores what makes establishing an Institute in The Hague with such a programme a natural step. We will call this “The Hague DNA”, which we elaborate in a separate document: the Narrative that shows how the working methods of the HIGJ are linked to The Hague‟s history and to its institutions for containing conflict. In addition, a number of global trends are set out, as a way of anchoring the Institute in the challenges of today. In this way the environment that is conducive to building a substantive competitive advantage is defined. d. In Part IV, the report builds on this foundation (The Hague DNA and the global trends). Based on the wealth of input that was received during the interactive process that underpins this report, we set out what was generally understood to constitute the substantive elements of „global justice‟. This is done on two levels: (a) a general conceptual and methodological level, including the innovative tools that can be made available; and (b) on a more practical level of four promising focus areas on which the Institute could start work almost immediately. e. The report ends with a general conclusion.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 9

1.

Part II | The Parameters and the Approach

Fact10 -finding and building blocks for programming

1. The Parameters

7. The starting point for the Commission was the Mission Statement of the HIGJ, as set out in the Project Plan HIGJ:

Mission statement of The HIGJ

The HIGJ is dedicated to promoting knowledge of justice and the law as the basis for and in relation to peace, security and social and economic development. The HIGJ does so by synthesizing the best and most innovative knowledge in these areas from national and international sources, with the goal of mobilizing various disciplines, actors, and geographical and cultural perspectives to cultivate an inclusive vision of issues where the absence or impending absence of justice and the law can lead to military, social and/or economic instability and inequality.

8. The Terms of Reference provided to the Commission requested it to prepare an initial programming proposal that: a. Is based on the Mission of the HIGJ; b. Connects sufficiently to demand and opportunities for further funding; c. Fully involves experts and institutions – national and international, academia and practice - from the Hague “global justice cluster” (i.e. law/justice, in relation to safety/security and social and economic development); and d. Takes into consideration and is directed at exploring concrete options for strategic alliances/partnerships that contribute to the objectives of the HIGJ to (i) stimulate innovation and coherence; (ii) bring together international demand and best, most innovative expertise in the world; (iii) build global network on highest level, aimed at innovation and valorization.

9. At a meeting with the Interim Steering Group on 16 September the following additional guidance was provided: a. Be ambitious, go the extra mile for truly new tools to tackle the challenges of our time; b. Work both on demand; also explore the role of the Institute as a trendsetter; 1. On demand: prove that the Institute can deliver the very best (knowledge)products; 2. As a trendsetter: build credit with new, practically applicable and acceptable ideas and products c. Identify a number of substantive Focus Areas (around four) for the Institute, based on two criteria: 1. There is a clear – preferably global - need for comprehensive, inclusive work on them. 2. They are illustrative of the HIGJ-vision and of the reason why the HIGJ is in The Hague. d. Lastly, a request was made to identify possible „quick wins‟ for the Institute: one or two programmes that could commence at short notice, with a high chance of concrete success.

Fact-finding and building blocks for programming

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 11

2. The Approach

10. In light of the request to “[f]ully [involve] experts and institutions – national and international, academia and practice”, to “[explore] concrete options for strategic alliances/partnerships” and to “[connect] sufficiently to demand and opportunities for further funding” the Commission chose as its approach an open process, involving all relevant expertise. Partnerships, alliances, and avenues for further funding can only be built around expertise and demand that is visibly present and ideas which have sufficient critical mass. For this reason, the report carries some of the characteristics of a fact-finding mission.

11. As part of our understanding of the Terms of Reference we have collected data about:

 Dreams and expectations of the key players behind the mission statement;

 Demand for knowledge in the area of justice;

 Opportunities for The Hague as they are perceived by insiders and outsiders;

 Building blocks for the HIGJ, people identifying with the mission, possible resources, possible partnerships.

12. It has been somewhat of a high-pressure process. We considered it of great importance to actively and constantly engage all first thoughts with interactions, feed-back and actions, in an open and transparent environment, for a number of reasons:

a. It is through such a process that involvement that is now out there has been realized for the Institute to build on; b. By constantly challenging people we were able to bring out big ideas, big dreams, and to induce people to step out of their daily institutional roles; c. The interactive process also provided a means through which hypotheses could be constantly challenged; d. Similarly, all possible biases – including those of the Commission members – could be always be challenged; e. By sharing openly, information on this broad and high risk venture was shared, so that opportunities can be maximized and some mistakes prevented.

13. The process also ensured that gaps and lack of consensus is as evenly reflected as things which participants felt comfortable about and could agree on.

12

3. Sources of information

14. The main sources of information used for this report are the following:

a. Documents and reports marking the genesis of the HIGJ, in particular initial substantive ideas provided by the Hague Academic Coalition (HAC), the report Den Haag en Global Justice, and the The Hague Institute for Global Justice Project Plan. b. An International Stakeholder Workshop on 10 September 2010 with more than 80 participants representing: (a) various law disciplines, economics, development studies, sociology, anthropology, environment, health, international relations, security/defense, peace studies, history and science philosophy; (b) (inter)national courts and tribunals, World Bank, Dutch ministries, Dutch and international NGOs, consultancy firms, academia from universities and research and training institutes, practitioners from real cases (Uganda, DRC, Sudan); (c) the following nationalities: Australia, Belgium, Canada, India, The Netherlands, Senegal, South Africa, Russia, Spain, Uganda, UK, USA, and Vietnam. This workshop produced 82 so-called knowledge gaps and results in the pipeline to deal with knowledge gaps. It also provided 9 suggestions for research into broader legal/developmental questions of great significance but not directly connected with an immediate, concretely worded demand. Lastly, the workshop resulted in consensus on six headings under which the knowledge gaps and results could be ranked. c. A Feedback Session with the Interim Steering Group on 16 September to seek initial feed-back on the results from the International Stakeholder Workshop d. An interactive Brainstorming Workshop on 24 September with eleven persons representing different perspectives and nationalities (Thanh-Dam Truong, Ko Colijn, Carsten Stahn, Sergey Vasiliev, Ed Maan, Godelieve van Heteren, Monica Maassen, Karen van Stegeren, as well as the three members of the Commission). This workshop helped digest the enormous amount of information received from the International Stakeholder Workshop. It also helped us get closer to a way in which the substantive „essence‟ of the Institute might best be defined, concluding, amongst other things that substance and method are intimately connected for what is envisaged with the new Institute. e. A workshop with The Hague Academic Coalition on 24 September with representative of the institutional co-founders of the Institute: the Carnegie Foundation, The Hague Academy for International Law, HiiL, ISS, Asser Institute, the Hague University for Applied Sciences, The Hague Academic Coalition and Clingendael Institute. In this workshop the initial results where presented, so that these institutes can reflect on their roles, their strengths and possible partnerships.. f. On 30 September a first outline of what the Commission envisaged as its final report was sent around to all participants in the process, with requests for comments. Written comments where received and are summarized in Annex 2. g. On 13 October, a second, more elaborate draft was sent out to all participants in the process, with a request for comments. Written comments were received and are summarized in Annex 3. h. Information from groups that spontaneously organized workshops on themes related to the HIGJ during the time that the commission worked, see Annex 5. i. Interviews and countless informal conversations and e-mails, tacit knowledge and experience of the commission members, who each have been involved in The Hague Legal Capital in different roles for many years/decades. The Annex 5, a list of people we thank for their valuable contributions, and the potential partner organizations mentioned in discussions of the focal areas, gives an indication of the network that already supports the HIGJ and can be mobilized.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 13

Part III | The Hague DNA and Trends

Fact14 -finding and building blocks for programming

1. The Hague DNA

15. The Commission was asked to provide a Narrative on the comparative advantage of The Hague as hometown for the HIGJ:

 departing from historically rooted brand name “The Hague – city of peace and justice” & “ The Hague Legal Capital of the World”

 substantiating why The Hague is the best/only place in the world for the HIGJ to be established (i.e. added value of The Hague)

 linking this to substantive Focus Areas logically resulting from the mission and the added value of HIGJ and to main issues on demand side.

16. The Narrative is provided in a separate document. The narrative shows how The Hague developed, as a place:

 that is a centre of governance, with a track record as a facilitator of governance processes rather than as a source of (coercive) power;

 that is neutral; an open space, a safe haven, where diverging interests can meet, perspectives can be shared, differences can be aired, self-reflexive, pluralistic platform for tolerance and dialogue, attentive listening and mutual learning and where processes towards compromise can unfold, without a dominant world view;

 where modest facilitators such as Tobias Asser (law, international relations), Jan Tinbergen (development, economics) and Max van der Stoel (security, diplomacy) organized teams that took on the challenges of their time;

 where these facilitators worked with the best knowledge they could find across the globe, rather than being great inventors themselves; inviting world leaders to take up their roles; doing the hard work of patiently stitching the complex tools together; tools that helped to make the world a place with more fairness and justice.

 with a number of lasting and internationally recognized contributions to making transparent what is lawful, fair, just, and more secure in relations between governments and in relations between governments and citizens.

 with courts and other institutions for conflict resolution that work hard in order to contribute to global justice, although they still have imperfections.

 with institutes that provide studies and education experiences, in many and often very creative formats, where different perspectives are brought together, in an atmosphere of listening and asking open, non-judgmental questions and letting data speak for themselves.

Fact-finding and building blocks for programming

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 15

2. Trends

17. How can this „Hague DNA‟ be placed against the backdrop of the current environment in which the Institute will have to operate? The Commission was not in a position to do an in-depth study of trends. Nonetheless, the need to place the outline of the substantive programme against the backdrop of things that are really happening was a constant part of the conversations and debates in the workshops and elsewhere. The Commission was able to benefit from a more in-depth international trends analysis prepared in the context of the HiiL Law of the Future 2030 project.

18. A number of broad trends against which the substantive proposals contained in this report should be views are described below:

 More people: World population expected to increase from 6.8 billion (2009) to a maximum level 9 billion in 2050. Increased migration flows, within states and between states.

 More environment: The environment will become a hugely relevant factor on all areas of life: economics, politics, and social interaction. Over the last century, the global average temperature has risen by 1.1 degrees Celsius. Biodiversity is decreasing. Interdependency relating to environmental issues: solving matters in isolation is not an option.

 More scarcity: Growth in population will put greater stress on land, water and fossil energy; by 2015, growth and production of oil and gas will not match the projected rate of demand; by 2050, world grain output will have to rise by half and meat production must double in order to meet demand; the proportion of people living in countries chronically short of water is Estimated to reach up to 45% (4 billion) by 2050; budget deficits in the coming decades as a result of economic downturn.

 More technology: Technology will play an increasingly important role over the next 20 years; providing solutions, increased globalization of business and other interactions, yet also creating new problems (digital divide, technology divide, privacy, social media, bio- and nanotechnology).

 More security: Broadening of the definition of security. Six clusters of security threats defined by the UN High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change of 2004: (i) economic and social threats, including poverty, infectious disease and environmental degradation; (ii) inter-state conflict; (iii) internal conflict, including civil war, genocide and other large-scale atrocities; (iv) nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons; (v) terrorism; (vi) transnational organized crime. Technology also creates new security threats.

 More levels of power: More divergence of sources of power, at different levels - international, regional, national, local – and between public and private. Often resulting in tensions. A multi-polar world. Shift to Asia.

 More inequality: Increased concerns about rich-poor divide, globally and within states.

 More information: There is more and more information out there, it is accessible to more and more people, it is produced, embedded, found and shared in ways that constantly change and develop, affecting existing practices, customs, power structures, etc..

16

3. Combining DNA and trends

19. The trends provide an indication of the direction in which The Hague DNA might develop. That DNA should account for the high degree of interconnectedness and interdependence of global challenges. It should take into consideration more views, more interests, and more perspectives, more at the same time, relating to the same problem. The DNA should engage technology, both as a means to support the work and as an object of study. It should take into account a world that is becoming less state-centric. A demand for more effective management of risk should be taken into consideration.

20. Some of the more apparent needs which can be deduced from these trends include:

a. Having more effective conflict resolution mechanisms, both with respect to procedural and to substantive issues, to deal tensions between universal norms and local application, multilevel governance, increased interaction (competition, conflict, complementarity and symbiosis) between actors, values and interests, norms, sources of law, procedures and legal orders; b. Enhancing risk management, creating more predictability; c. Developing governance structures and processes that can cope with more diffuse power structures at different levels and areas, covering transnational activities and local activities; d. Enhancing the ability to deal with complexity and multi-stakeholder issues, with diverse interests; e. Enhancing knowledge development and –sharing processes, bringing together different sources of knowledge, linking them with real problems, and building in feed-back loops and evidence-based working methods.

21. For the HIGJ, this can create the following opportunities:

 Building on the Hague DNA, become the place where justice as a component of multilevel political, social, economic, and legal processes is well understood;

 Based on that, become the place where more effective conflict resolution mechanisms can be developed and implemented;

 Using the wealth of practice that is coming out of the conflict resolution mechanisms that are present in The Hague;

 Develop integrative approaches and methods which support that, with ability to address issues at different levels, with different stakeholders, at the same time; Find new ways to better use knowledge networks and information technology to support this

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 17

Part IV | Towards Global Justice

Fact18 -finding and building blocks for programming

1. Substantive elements

22. During the programming process, the Commission worked from two sides. The many suggestions for concrete knowledge gaps and results in the pipeline provided one way of finding a direction for coherent programming and the mission of the Institute provided another point of departure. In this mission, and in the name of the Institute, global justice is the central concept. In the HIGJ Background note which the Commission provided to the participants of the International Stakeholder Workshop, the following broader elements of „global justice‟ were set out:

 Comprehensive: beyond procedural and „legal‟ justice and encompassing among others fairness, reconciliation and equal access to opportunities and resources as well as the processes geared to achieve them.

 Contextual: rules which work in a context and which help shape that context at the same time.

 Systemic: incorporating thinking on governance, peace and security, and sustainable development.

 Human-centered: relevance to people‟s real lives.

23. In the International Stakeholder Workshop the question of what global justice constitutes was looked at on this basis and on the basis of concrete ideas for projects and other things that the HIGJ might do. A number of aspects came to the fore:

a. Global justice is about conflict resolution in the broader sense, in which the the legal, security/safety, and social and economic development aspects are integrated. b. Global justice, thus seen, is something new that needs to be further developed, with the (new) methods, processes which support that. c. Global justice should be studied in the interaction between global politics and local realities; between national and international law; and between various layers of governance, between public and private, because that is what the realities of today demand. Therefore, global justice is as relevant to peace processes, international victim compensation mechanisms, preventive diplomacy, and international criminal justice, as for rule of law development at the national level, concrete decisions of judges and other, more local conflict solution mechanisms. d. Global justice is thus to a large degree an „outcome‟ of a process; whether it is the outcome of a peace process or a decision of a court: it must be „just‟ for it to be effective ad sustainable. e. Such an „outcome‟ can be better understood with evidence-based methodologies and the integrative approach described under (a), above. f. Once the notion of „justice‟ is better understood qualitatively and quantitatively, conflict solution process and mechanisms can be better designed and this is what the HIGJ should also focus on. g. Global justice needs to be closely connected to the challenges set out in the global trends set out in paragraph 18, in particular: global interconnectedness and interdependency related to global challenges; multi-level governance and multi-level law; more diversity of power sources including shifts between public and private; increased volatility; and technological developments.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 19

24. In preparation of the Brainstorming Workshop, the Commission asked for a quick scan of the interdisciplinary justice literature, which yielded the following, very sketchy and preliminary picture of a number of the facets of justice. Some of these justice concepts are used in international relations and peace-building (such as transitional justice) or philosophy (distributive justice, utilitarian justice). Others are more familiar to those involved in the study and practice of procedural fairness and (legal) procedure (procedural justice, informational justice, interpersonal justice). Some justice concepts are tied to specific cultures (individual, collective) or to specific settings, such as the processes dealing with crime (retributive justice, restorative justice).

Quick Scan Interdisciplinary Justice literature

Possible impact of justice on people’s lives:

 Personal security, Trust > investment in property and relationships; Conflict-solving and prevention/deterrence; Empowering; Happiness, welfare; Reconciliation, healing

What? Substantive justice

 Distributive (needs, equity, equality), Restorative, Retributive, Pragmatic/utilitarian, Transformative, Transitional

What? Procedural justice

 Voice, participation, trustworthiness, neutrality; Interpersonal justice (respect); Informational justice (transparency)

For whom? Clients and beneficiaries

 Individual and collective; Public relationships and private relationships; Instant and inter-generational

Level ?

 International and national and local

Perspectives from various disciplines making facets of justice transparent:

 The judicial perspective (with its different levels and dealing with restorative and retributive issues, Damaska, Faces of justice)

 Philosophical perspective (Sen, incremental progress in the field of justice)

 The global political economy approach, stressing distributive aspects (needs, equity, equality) and representation, voice, participation, interpersonal justice (respect)

 The transformative approach in transitional justice, emphasizing informational justice (transparency)

 Political philosophy work by Pogge, Follesdahl and others holding that the globe should be seen as an arena for justice, not an arena where each agent is justified to seek only its own interest

 Economics perspective (Fehr, Frey, Konow)

 Access to justice perspective (evaluation, measurement perceptions of justice).

 The social psychology perspective (Tyler, journal social justice research, procedural justice and distributive justice)

 The international law perspective (work of Daniel Druckman on justice in peace-building agreements)

How? Institutions and process

 Sustainable / permanent - ad hoc; Formal and informal; Top down (state sponsored) - bottom up (communal/grass roots); Uniform/universal and context-sensitive/relative

20

25. Further exploring the notion of global justice as it emerged from the International Stakeholder workshop, the following elements merged from the subsequent Brainstorming Workshop:

 Recognizing the multiplicity of layers of political, economic and social life and diversity of views, people and situations and the need to be able to cope with that;

 The challenges of incorporating notions of justice in the known security and safety dialogue;

 The experience of people feeling transformed by The Hague‟s experience of a safe, reflexive space where all questions can be asked and people go home with an open attitude;

 Looking at justice as a matter of “and” rather than “or/versus”;

 Recognizing the importance of seeing the overlaps between different forms of justice (restorative, distributive f.i.) as well as the overlaps between different institutions/rules (influencing the same people/problems at the same time);

 The idea that synthesis is doable and the gaps researchable; making a painting from a patchwork;

 The facets of justice may be synthesized from the perspective of human beings and from that of the legal order; from the people perspective and from the state perspective;

 Going beyond individual rights, because many issues are felt to be more collective problems;

 Constructive conflict and dispute mechanisms (broadly seen, including instruments at the strategic defence level) as the situation where justice becomes most salient and as a natural focus for The Hague;

 A belief in new effective solutions that bring a real promise of advancement.

26. In the same discussion, the old maxim of justice being done, being seen to be done, and being felt to be done surfaced. It was felt that this idea, linked to conflict resolution in its broadest sense (individual level, group level, state level, regional level) encapsulates the central idea of the Institute well. With a better understanding of what justice is, the notion might find a clearer place in conflict resolution processes - in the process itself and in the end goals that are formulated. Thus, the core task of the HIGJ would be to bring the old maxim to a next, and global level'.

A possible central idea:

Enabling people to ensure and making transparent whether:

 justice is done

 justice is felt to be done;

 justice is seen to be done; In conflict mechanisms (in the broadest sense); and for every person concerned.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 21

27. The Commission sees advantages of working from such a central idea:  Suggests transparency of what happens and what works as a key way to contribute to a world that is more fair for everybody.

 Provides a challenge for research, education and valorization of knowledge.

 Invites interdisciplinary research (legal, social sciences, economics).

 Suggests methods which are (or will be)available for establishing/measuring justice.

 Suggests methods which are (or will be) available for identifying what works to enable justice.

 Suggests the facilitating role of The Hague.

 Links to a famous legal maxim.

 Links to the name of the Institute.

28. Having said that, it is recognized that the notion is also very broad, and needs to be developed, preferably with the help of concrete programmes, which can start quite soon after the Institute if formally opened.

29. Summarizing the substance: global justice is about conflict resolution in the broadest sense. The dream: if the „justice‟ component of conflict resolution mechanisms – for example, peace processes, processes to strengthen failing states, international dispute resolution mechanisms, rule of law development strategies – is better understood in all its aspects, then more effective processes and institutions that deal with conflict can be developed. Global justice goes beyond the legal dimension and also looks at the security/safety and social economic development dimensions of justice. It relates both to institutions and people. The old maxim of justice being done, being felt to be done, being seen to be done lies at the heart of the notion of global justice. It is an integrative concept, in which justice at the individual level and the national, regional, or international levels are all related. A peace process which does not take into consideration justice at the local level is bound to fail. At the same time, exclusive focus on local justice at the village level will not yield much in terms of nation building if it is not fitted into a greater whole. Global justice is there to help deal with the challenges of our time.

22

2. Methods and substance

30. According to the Brainstorming Group, the elements referred to in paragraph 25 suggest a complementarity between substantive idea of global justice and the methods, processes through which it is worked on. Some suggestions that were made include:

 Invite people from across the globe to share their justice needs in the Hague and listen to what kind of justice they expect.

 Analyze why and how.

 Elaborating a new global justice theory of conflict resolution (inter alia empirical-based).

 Using legal pluralism as an instrument to overcome differing views.

 Funnel, bring (relevant) justice knowledge to the points where people can act on it.

 Looking for local knowledge, working in global realities.

 Renewing national and international institutions, understanding innovation processes.

 Answering the demand for an evidence base (there are donors out there).

 Does not suggest one or a few magic bullets, but a lasting challenge, of gradual improvement.

 Is a new perspective in comparison to mainstream rule of law thinking, which usually looks for essential elements of a legal system (judiciary, separation of powers) or key outcomes (enjoyment of fundamental human rights, property rights protection, contract enforcement or compliance with the law) and which, in addition, does not integrate well (evidence-based) with security and development policies and objectives.

 Can be applied to international relations/norms and to local situations.

31. The complementarity between substance and method (used in a very broad sense, encompassing everything between highly specialized research methods, business models, and general ethical stands) can be translated into three building blocks for the Institute.

32. To begin with, there seems to be general agreement that an interdisciplinary approach is necessary. This fits the tendency at law faculties in the Netherlands and elsewhere to value interdisciplinary research highly and to set up interdisciplinary research groups.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 23

The demand for interdisciplinary research illustrated

Each of the 93 knowledge gaps/research results identified during the International Stakeholder Workshop was analyzed from the perspective of a limited list of disciplines that would be involved/ could be engaged for this item. On average, more than 3 disciplines would need to be involved for each knowledge gap/research result. This number would become much higher if specializations such as victimology or criminal procedure law were taken into account and other disciplines would be included, such as social psychology and security studies.

The following (broad) disciplines would be needed (ranked according to frequency):

 Public (International) Law – in 78 items of 93 in total (=89.6%)

 Economics – 43 (=49.4%)

 Dispute resolution – 37 (=42.5%)

 Human rights and security studies 43 (=40.4%)

 International relations – 32 (=36.7%)

 Private law – 28 (=32.1%)

 Philosophy and legal theory – 20 (=23%)

 Business/finance – 15 (=17.2%)

 Ecology – 12 (=13.8%)

 History – 5 (=5.7%)

Total 311 disciplines for 93 knowledge gaps

33. The Brainstorming Workshop stressed triangulation, and diversity of methods to tackle problems. The Workshop even put forward the following possible working principle: if the HIGJ picks a problem, it will do it comprehensively, tackling it from at least three different perspectives.

34. The mission statement of the HIGJ clearly suggests that the business model working methods should embody by research, knowledge transfer and valorization. This leads to the conclusion that the Institute should have as its core business innovative combinations of the three, and not pure, fundamental research; not pure education without any involvement from practice or research; and not pure valorization/application but the one that enriches research and education. This was confirmed in all workshops.

35. Summarizing: Global justice is developed using the open, reflective, inclusive methods that are central to five centuries of Hague DNA and takes these methods to a next level. Its method takes interdisciplinarity as a point of departure, is open to many perspectives, and includes innovative combinations of research, knowledge transfer, and valorization.

24

3. Partnerships

36. The Terms of Reference request an exploration into possible alliances which could support the realization of the objectives of the HIGJ. A partnership approach to the substantive work of the Institute also emerged from the International Stakeholder Workshop, the Brainstorm Workshop, the HAC Workshop, and other input received. According to almost all stakeholders, and especially the organizations involved in valorization (NGO‟s, international organizations, ministries) partnerships make it possible to develop and apply new and relevant knowledge. The Commission has continuously tested this partnership assumption during the process and fully concurs that making partnerships a key component of the Institute‟s strategy would be a critical success factor.

37. Its exploration of the notion of partnerships yielded a number of valuable points.

38. In short: in effective global justice partnerships, research, education and valorization are co-designed with stakeholders, and carried out jointly with stakeholders. Commitment and fundraising (matching) are built into the partnership from the start. Stakeholders would include NGO‟s and (international) organizations, national ministries or other bodies at the demand side, specialized and world class research groups at universities in the Netherlands and elsewhere, but also research partners and organizations that are involved in innovative practices in order to improve the selected conflict mechanisms. Facilitated by the HIGJ, the partners would together define how they would approach the focus area. Within the focal areas, they would identify priorities and quick wins, with maximum expected impact. Tasks would be divided, taking a track record of excellence and commitment to results as points of reference.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 25

An imaginary example of a large scale partnership

Edged on by indications from the UN Secretariat pursuant to the UN Secretary-General‟s 2010 Report on the Strengthening and Coordinating UN Rule of Law Activities, the Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs sees a need to develop expertise and strategies relating to judicial diplomacy, i.e. diplomacy relating to the justice aspects of state building. It has sounded some of the initial ideas out with a number of European partners and the Canadian Foreign Ministry and has found interest and broad support for such an idea. Through the HIGJ a first group of experts – academics and practitioners from different fields and background – is brought together and an inventory of the relevant expertise and needs is made. This is further refined in two subsequent workshops, drawing in experts from EU partners, the Norwegians (PRIO), UK-DFID, and Canadian-CIDA, and experts from low income countries in which the problem plays out. A number of hot spots of highly relevant research are found – in The Netherlands, the UK, Norway, Canada, South Africa, Kenya, Japan, and Indonesia.

The research is connected and, in this process, an ambitions research and development programme aimed at identifying useful and less useful political interventions and strategies is written. This programme, unique in terms of the different types of expertise it embodies, immediately attracts a number of potential clients for the results. These clients are able to assist in initial funding and use their networks to bring in more donors. By now, the initial investment of €250.000 by the HIGJ has attracted ten research groups and 20 institutional partners who all contribute – in cash and in kind – bringing the total value of the joint venture to €75 million, where funding by major donors is tied to concrete results and progress.

The process of identifying useful and less useful political interventions and strategies, based on experience, to support judicial activities such as war crimes trials, transitional justice mechanisms, and rule of law development strategies starts. The partnership includes social scientists, anthropologists, international relations experts, historians, and lawyers. Data is collected from all mayor theaters over the past 15 years in which justice was a component of the nation building efforts. For this, cooperation is established with the UN, the World Bank, the ICTY, the ICTR, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the ICC, and a number of national efforts such as Guatemala and South Africa.

Based on the data and a collective analysis of the data through the different lenses of the various disciplines involved the partnership is able, within a year, to build a database of successful and less successful interventions, including a overview of factors that were considered to determine whether an intervention was successful or not. From this, a number of measuring instruments are developed which are related to success factors. The HIGJ functions as the hub where all this comes together and is the custodian of the database. In a next step, twenty-eight months after the project started, a curriculum is developed by the partnership through which an elite group of specialized „justice ambassadors‟ is trained to act as the vanguard of EU and AU policy to include justice and rule of law in state building strategies from the first moment. A new concept, judicial diplomacy, is born, with continuous learning mechanisms (training, web-based platforms, etc) to support it. In this way, the Dutch, with the HIGJ in full support, become the leading EU state in judicial diplomacy, with The Hague as a natural centre of gravity.

26

39. During the partnership, and afterwards, the knowledge developed will be used and valorized by each stakeholder in its own way. If the partnership develops in a successful way, ministries, international organizations, NGO‟s, and other partners at the demand side are involved with developing the knowledge and integrating it into their practices. In this way, their practices become more evidence based, and thus more effective. This can increase their eligibility for funding.

40. Researchers co-develop research questions which are highly relevant for stakeholders and are at the frontier of knowledge. They gather new data and they experience how knowledge is used at the end of the distribution chain, where people act on them, developing networks of possible future clients, and interacting with top-researchers from other countries. Being at the frontier of new knowledge and the frontier of relevance, their opportunities for attracting funding can increase.

41. Around the partnerships, knowledge sharing activities develop which have a strong comparative advantage by being in the vicinity of the source where it is happening. The education programs, seminars, executive training programs, trainings for professionals, and other methods of knowledge sharing, become enriched by the presence of the best researchers with new, world class knowledge. Spaces for innovation can develop, because of the size of the partnership.

42. This method also builds interest from funders from the start, from which concrete commitment can result if the partnership is successful. And partners become co-fundraisers, together with the HIGJ.

43. The Commission also identified some challenges for this method. Doing something that is really new would involve a learning process and the building of complex, multi-party stakeholder partnerships Very good “research brokers and managers” would be needed, and the skills and attitudes for partnerships have to be present across the partnerships (see box below).

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 27

8 Key principles for successful partnerships

Monica Maassen, experienced partnership builder at Oxfam Novib, mentioned the following key success factors for partnerships during the Brainstorming Workshop: 1. Passionate leaders, who really want the overall partnership to succeed, and are prepared to through walls 2. Directors of partners who stimulate their people continuously to move beyond (step out of) the own institutional identity 3. Out of the box thinking; being aware of own “in the box thinking” 4. Curiosity/willing to think deeper 5. Leadership competencies 6. Don‟t be naïve: conflicts will come on money and people (see them as institutional challenges) 7. Be open in negotiation: balance between ownership and partnership; 8. People like to talk about contents, but underestimate (proper) process and procedure

In later comments, the following additional points have been suggested:  Seed money is needed for partnerships  Create matches with maximum impact  Quick wins are essential (but may conflict with excellent quality, Olympic results)  The precise role of the HIGJ in partnerships should be defined  Partners should be able to work under their own name, as well as under the name of the HIGJ  Long term partnerships are more attractive than ad hoc partnerships  Building partnerships with “intimate strangers” is time consuming and hard work, so start early  A roadmap with the process of involving partners at the right time both on organization and product level would be useful  Be realistic and clear on funding issues early on  Building partnerships between theory and practice may also be a battlefield  Partnerships are also a matter of precise communication, time and responsibility

44. During the process, other challenges were mentioned by participants, that we list here for the sake of brevity, but which have to be explored more fully:

 Openness needed to cooperate with partners with overlapping knowledge;

 Openness and skills needed to understand and integrate the needs, the highly specialized knowledge and business models of partners;

 High upfront investment in forming partnerships and maybe showing “proof of concept”/ initial results;

 A way must be found for the HIGJ to obtain a share of the revenues in order to be sustainable;

 Given the scale of the partnerships, and the required activities, opportunities for the Hague Knowledge Institutions to expand their knowledge sharing, facilitation and valorization activities (a calculation could be made on the expected extra activities or income if a 100 million partnership would be made).

45. HIGJ would be facilitated from The Hague, although much of the activities would probably be carried out abroad, because the places where people can act on the knowledge will often be the conflict zones, the places where disruptive investments take place, or the relationships of the people who need legal empowerment most. But the activities would be very substantial, and the facilitative role of The Hague is likely to be appreciated abroad. As we have seen from The Hague DNA, this is where the city‟s knowledge infrastructure has its natural role.

28

46. When directors of The Hague knowledge institutions talk about their activities, they become passionate. One of the core assets of The Hague is a reflexive, truly open space for learning and dialogue, which seems to have the following components (although it has been difficult to find the right words for it):

 A variety of meeting places, all with a different atmosphere, in the ISS, HiiL, Clingendael Institute, Asser Institute and the Hague Academy, Raad voor rechtspraak, The Hague Academic Coalition, the Hague Conference of Private International Law and the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, etc.

 A variety of (often sophisticated) methods : forms of debate, research seminars, research development processes, education and arenas for testing different policy options; PhD programs for students from low income countries; simulations for strategic decision making; executive programmes, three week seminars where selected students write an article together with a professor.[18]

 The interaction is filled with content: state of the art knowledge.

 What is shared, and very special for The Hague according to many alumni, is a unique atmosphere. Here knowledge is not merely distributed to interested students, diplomats, scholars or executives, but genuinely shared between people from across the globe.

 In their best moments, these are open, reflexive spaces where people feel safe to share any thought that comes up, to take any position they seem fit and to be the person they really want to be. Places where one particular world view, legal dogma or scientific perspective can only dominate for a short time. Each view will always be gently challenged by another one, and than yet another perspective, coming from a different culture, scientific tradition or personality.

 For many it is a life changing experience;

 The networks of alumni are strong.

47. This culture and these methods are an asset of these institutions and of the city. These can be reinforced, by jointly developing additional methods and cultivating this culture. That culture of dialogue fits The Hague, because it has a long culture of modesty that does not overwhelm the participants. Compared to similar global meeting places such as Washington or even Geneva, government buildings are modest, as are the buildings of courts and state agencies. This fits a city which institutions serve the world, rather than trying to impress. This breeds a culture of listening and understanding, rather than of confrontation. At the same time, the presence of these court institutions strongly suggests the neutrality, the global diversity and equal access for everyone.

48. This does not mean these institutions do not have anything to learn. Different comments that the commission received during the process, suggest that with conflict solution mechanisms as a possible core theme, the institutions could strive for even more excellence, working from more of a shared vision. One commentator suggested that “Dedication, science and skills are key to reach an Olympic level. If this city wants to be the world's knowledge centre on Gobal Justice it requires exactly the same approach.”

49. If world class excellence in methods of dialogue would be the goal, this would require a sustained investment in developing better partnership building methods. As has been said before, such methods could include using IT to support interaction (mobile, twitter, working on documents together simultaneously, online dispute resolution, wiki, creative brainstorming sessions). Another area for learning would be facilitation skills: questioning, probing, negotiating, bargaining, summarizing, high-speed interactions, wrapping up results, repeated interaction, and other forms of enriching results. A culture of critical self-reflection, and learning would be necessary, as would establishing more clearly the precise demand for these techniques It would be necessary to develop good business models to market these world class interaction methods.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 29

4. Summarizing

50. The conclusions of Part IV can be summarized as follows: the substance of global justice is about conflict resolution in the broadest sense. If the „justice‟ component of conflict resolution mechanisms is better understood in all its aspects, then more effective processes and institutions that deal with conflict can be developed. Method and substance are complementary. Global justice is developed using the open, reflective, inclusive methods that are central to five centuries of Hague DNA and takes these methods to a next level. Its method takes interdisciplinarity as a point of departure, is open to many perspectives, and includes innovative combinations of research, knowledge transfer, and valorization. The ability to develop the best and most effective partnerships around a particular focus area will be a critical success factor for the Institute.

51. In the following Part V these conclusions are, in a way, put to practice. A number of substantive programme headings, as they emerged from the interactive process, are elaborated and assessed against seven criteria which emerge from the Terms of Reference and consultations with the Interim Steering group.

30

Part V | Five proposed Focus Areas for partnerships

FactThe Hague-finding Institute and buildingfor Global blocksJustice for programming 31

52. As indicated in the Introduction to this report, the Commission was also requested to indentify, if possible, a number promising areas of focus for the Institute. In this chapter of the report, that is done. Each of the four suggested areas fall within the broad substantive “HIGJ” parameters that were described above. In addition, the “HIGJ” methods are applied to the way they are described. For this, seven criteria which have their origin in the Commission‟s Terms of Reference and in the first meeting with the Interim Steering Group are used:

Seven Focus Area Criteria

1. There is a clear – preferably global - need for comprehensive, inclusive work on them.

2. They are illustrative of the HIGJ-vision and of the reason why the HIGJ is in The Hague.

3. They would benefit from an innovative tool or agenda-setting concept offered by the HIGJ.

4. Each of them builds upon three or more hot spots of world class knowledge.

5. Innovative and constructive partnerships can be built on them with the institutions based

in the Netherlands as well as outside.

6. Quick wins in one year (e.g. executive master programme) and breakthrough within

three years are possible.

7. The programmes are attractive to potential donors and funding schemes preferably need

to be readily available.

53. The Commission took the following approach to identifying focus areas:

 The International Stakeholder Workshop (72 participants) generated 93 results/knowledge gaps (defined as: research results (already presented or in the pipeline) of yourself or your groups/research communities that you are most proud of; and (ii) knowledge gaps, lacunae, difficult or insurmountable challenges from practice. Input should be as concrete as possible: theories, insights, guidelines, recommendations, methods, etc..) These 93 items can be found in Annex 1. The Commission assumes that this is a reasonably fair representation of what stakeholders think and feel intuitively what an Institute for Global Justice located in The Hague could do, although there are some clear limitations to this sampling strategy (see under 1).

 The International Stakeholder Workshop was also asked to form preliminary headings for focus areas. These headings are the (slightly changed) headings of the sections below. In later stages, several alternative titles for these programs have been developed (see below).

 In Annex 1, the results and identified gaps have been drawn into tables joining topics roughly under the headings that came out of the brainstorming in the International Stakeholder Workshop. We provide, for each item, the idea, the relevant author, potential beneficiaries and donors.

 Obviously, there are many other ways to organize the results. The results may reflect many possible selection biases (invitees, who came to the meeting, could not make it, our own ignorance etc.).

 The results have not been organized based on a clear assessment of whether there is a clear demand for them. Having said that, all participants in the process where consistently asked to indicate where they saw a demand for their ideas. It should also be noted that demand side experts were also present at the workshops.

 Some statistics were made and an analysis was performed on them (see box below) the statistics also supported the choice of the four focal areas.

32

Some statistics on results/knowledge gaps

An initial idea of what stakeholders see as the most urgent focus areas can be obtained by counting the results/knowledge gaps under each of the headings: This gives the following results:

1. Growing justice bottom up: models for institutions (22 results/gaps) 2. Making promises stick: compliance with self-regulation and human rights (19 results/gaps) 3. Courts for 2020: creating examples of excellence (14 results/gaps) 4. Rule of law and weak states: integrating security, justice and development perspectives (13 results/gaps) 5. Best mechanisms for sharing natural resources (2 results/gaps) 6. Sustainable migration: a framework (2 results/gaps)

Other: Various (10 results/gaps); Ethical issues (9 items); General infrastructure (2 items)

54. As discussed above in Part III, in the course of the process after the International Stakeholder Workshop and in relation to the central idea, a new focus area, connected with the working methods of the Institute itself, came up. This has become focus area 1.

55. In the following, each of the focus areas that emerged out of the consultation process is further developed, using the guidance of the seven criteria. This gives an impression about how the focal areas could develop, and what the partnerships could look like. Finding the precise target will be a gradual process, building on what is already available.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 33

Focus Area/partnership 1| Towards „fact-based‟ justice: Verifying methods and testing assumptions

This focus area encompasses the faces of global justice itself, as well as the core methods of studying conflict mechanisms, using The Hague methods of learning and open space for reflection. It would become the core knowledge base of the HIGJ. It encompasses the following elements: ‒ Research/education/valorization on all facets of justice, including conflict mechanisms in the broadest sense. ‒ Diagnosis instruments, measuring methods and other ways to make transparent whether justice is being done, seen to be done and felt to be done ‒ Knowledge about the relationship (tensions as well as complementarity) between justice and peace, security, social and economic development, as well as governance. ‒ Methods of reflection and interaction for justice as described in Part IV.

1. A clear – preferably global - need for comprehensive, inclusive work on justice:  Justice views differ across the world, across power blocks and sides in major conflicts. Across settings from interpersonal to international. Across cultures. Across religions. Both those who believe in confrontation and those who believe in building bridges talk about justice. Making transparent where these views overlap and how each view offers a new perspective and can be a great contribution to global governance issues. Even if building a unique consensual vision of global justice appears impossible, the process in itself is valuable as it can expose the fullest specter of visions and hint to possible ways of reconciling some of them.  Many disciplines study facets of justice. Empirical research by social psychologists laid bare justice preferences (such as voice, equity and retribution); evolutionary economists are now able to explain these preferences; socio-legal researchers found the most frequent justice needs and mapped paths to justice; negotiation theory, conflict studies and dispute system design are disciplines that increasingly show what kind of mechanisms are able to deliver justice; lawyers study the international legal order, the national legal systems, countless informal legal systems and the experiences of people working with them; they sit on an enormous amount of data about what type of institutions work in real life to deliver justice. Institutional economics can add other perspectives, as well as (at the micro-level) legal anthropology. We are just in time for integration and confrontation of these different perspectives and putting them in a more overarching framework.  There is an increasing demand for methods and tools that enable a learning process towards making justice interventions more evidence based. Here we can follow the example of health care and agriculture which have applied the interdisciplinary approach in problems with many interfaces, but there are also examples in the justice sector: Best practices for reconstruction in post-conflict areas, “What works” in prevention of crime and attempts to learn from experiences in the area of legal empowerment coordinated by the World Bank, UNDP and the Open Society Justice Initiative.  There is big demand for a comprehensive approach to peace, security, social and economic development and government. Justice could be a linking pin here. Development studies, studies of international strategy, security studies, and the experiences from international diplomacy can add valuable perspectives to the other disciplines mentioned above. Gender justice and land issues could be two areas of focus for these efforts to develop a comprehensive approach. Recent years have seen a clear emergence of indicators, many directed at rule of law and governance, reflecting a need expressed by governments and private donors for more evidence based policies and clearer accountability;

34

2. Illustrative of the HIGJ-vision and of the reason why the HIGJ is in The Hague.  The HIGJ vision underlines the importance of bridging gaps between disciplines, academia and practices and fragmented cultural, geopolitical approaches to justice. Without adequate attention paid to methodology, no research programme or activity of the HIGJ would be sufficiently representative of the palette of views; the numerous connecting „bridges‟ the HIGJ is expected to walk back and forth on a daily basis cannot be built let alone crossed.

 For an institute studying global justice, synthesizing and confronting justice views, needs, methods, etc. is a task that directly flows from its mission; The institutional ground in The Hague, including but not limited to international judicial organs, treaty organisations, HAC partners, NGOs etc, presents a unique palette of disciplinary perspectives and methodologies that can will be drawn upon in progressing from „intuitive‟ to „evidence-based‟ concepts of global justice.

 Methods of reflection on and interaction in connection with justice are the core competence of the co-founding organizations of the HIGJ, the HAC partners;

 There are a number of institutes in the Hague which work on measuring tools and indicators;

 The Netherlands is a leading country in evaluating effectiveness of legislation, so there is expertise in practice which can be built upon;

 If The Hague is to be the global justice capital it should also be the depositary of cutting edge knowledge of what justice is. Bringing that knowledge together and having that knowledge captured within the Institute is also the best basis for the Institute to be the originator of enhancements and improvements connected with the international justice organisations which have their seat in The Hague.

 The Hague and its surroundings constitute a center of gravity in international justice and arbitration (ICJ, ICTY, ICC, Permanent Court of Arbitration). In their decision-making, these formal mechanisms of adjudication and dispute settlement often operate on the basis of normative assumptions and thus render „intuitive‟ rather than „evidence-based‟ justice. They may be interested in new methodologies and ways to combine them with those already in use the limitations of which are well-known. The HIGJ‟s products in the present focal area would be in great demand.

3. Would benefit from an innovative tool or agenda-setting concept offered by the HIGJ.

 Helping the world to make transparent how justice is being done being seen to be done and being felt to be done would greatly benefit the international organizations in the Hague that work on justice, for example the ICC and its victims mandate;

 It would also be output on the basis of which peace processes, other conflict management and resolution mechanisms could be improved.

 Combining and integrating methodologies which could allow enhancing the Global Justice beyond a sterile and abstract concept based on intuition rather than evidence provides an unequivocal promise of innovation in many adjacent disciplines and approaches. Currently, these are disconnected and have no platform for effective and genuine interaction on an equal footing, whereas research projects that are being executed in the methodology traditional to the respective discipline would in the absolute majority of cases benefit from broadening methodological horizons

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 35

4. Builds upon 3 or more hot spots of world class knowledge.  International criminal justice research conducted by UvA, UU, VU, UL and other partners increasingly becomes interdisciplinary. It engages, by cut and try, with innovative approaches and empirical methods. The HIGJ could benefit from and boost that research

 Social-psychologists studying negotiation and conflict in Amsterdam and elsewhere;

 Dispute system design and measuring justice in Tilburg, and elsewhere;

 HiiL and IRI work on measuring rule of law, including connections with World Justice Project, World Bank Justice for the Poor project, and international HiiL project measuring co- and self regulation, including a Visiting Chair;

 European Academy on Law and Legislation expertise on measuring effective legislation;

 The reflexive space created by institutions such as ISS, Asser, Hague Academy , HiiL, and others;

 The measuring institutions in and around the Hague that have experience with mapping complex social fenomena (CPB, SCP, WODC, Actal, Nibud).

5. Innovative and constructive partnerships can be built with the institutions based in the Netherlands as well as outside. We would need to work with world class:

 Procedural justice centres/experts such as ACIL/HiiL international criminal procedures project, Tom Tyler (NYU) and others;

 The Grotius Centre‟s projects on impact measurement and legal pluralism in international criminal law

 TMC Asser‟s interfaculty research project on interaction between International Criminal Justice and the Media

 Interdisciplinary research centers such as the Amsterdam Centre for the Interdisciplinary study of International Crimes (ACIC) and Nederlands Centrum Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving (NSCR) at VU University doing empirical research on how to qualify and quantify mass criminality.

 Measurement centres/experts such as World Bank, World Justice Project and others;

 Justice needs and paths to justice experts (LSRC, London) and others;

 Justice NGO‟s such as Open Society and others

 Work to increase effectiveness of ICC and other tribunals, including complementarity challenge and victims mandate, on the basis of empirical data on justice.

6. Quick wins in one year and breakthrough within three years possible. In one year:

 Bringing justice views to The Hague. Hearing, recording (Global Justice channel You Tube) and listening to justice views from all over the world.

 Letting interactive group with input of top researchers map justice views, justice needs, mechanisms etc. into first comprehensive handbook of justice.

 This would include the deep relationships with peace, security, economic and social development, as well as governance.

 Doing deeper survey of trends, marketing research,

 First versions of excellent tools to measure justice and to diagnose justice needs (macro-level, meso-level, micro-level)

 20 justice seminars, interactive meetings, by HAC partners

 Connect with ICC States Parties in furthering understanding of ICC complementarity challenge and victims mandate ICC

 Elaborating tools to assess and manage justice expectations on micro-level in the war-torn contexts that draw upon on an in-depth examination of the relationship between justice, peace, security, economic and social development as well as governance

 In cooperation with ICC, ECCC (Cambodia) and STL, an empirical study to map justice needs and objectives of victims participating in the proceedings

36

 Indicators of goals and objectives of international criminal justice, based on a comprehensive overview of its position in the system of post-conflict responses

 Project to develop, in cooperation with ICTY, SCSL and ICC, a model Outreach Unit and outreach programme for an international/ized criminal court starting up in politically hostile climate (based on the empirical experiences of those tribunals); advancing recommendations to streamline outreach efforts

 A series of conferences under a common theme of “Testing conceptual premises for criminal law proscriptions and forms of attribution/liability from cultural perspective” with broadest possible geographic, cultural and religious representation and attended by experts from non-Western backgrounds. A more concrete outcome could be a comprehensive and systemically organized edited volume covering all rubrics of substantive (international) criminal law from the critical interdisciplinary perspective.

 Programme to take stock and revisit the fundamental challenges against the legitimacy of international criminal justice, including the broader non-systemic problems of historical and contemporary international criminal tribunals (selective prosecution and enforcement, neo-colonialism and Western domination, conspiracy of the powerful, etc). These problems should be approached through the interdisciplinary prism of critical deconstruction of conceptual and cultural premises on which the tribunals‟ substantive law and procedures have rested (e.g. the problem of applying forms of attribution of Western origin in non-Western contexts landmarked by profoundly different regularities and structures of power and governance).

In three years:

 General acceptance of an overarching framework/storyline how peace, security, economic and social development, as well as governance are related and bound together by perceptions and concepts of justice;

 4 other programs/partnerships supported with world class concepts, maps of justice, tools, etc.

 50 projects done in which methods have been developed to make justice interventions evidence based together with stakeholders.

 1000 measurements/diagnosis efforts, data published on website

 Idea of evidence based approach to justice and conflict mechanisms is broadly known and accepted across the world.

 Feed back mechanisms have been developed, Understanding the manifestations of conflict and injustice can help find the means to redress immediate shortcomings, as well as to explore how these sufferings might be prevented through public reasoning on social justice and policy choices"

 “Justice light” conflict resolution mechanisms developed and tested

7. Attractive to potential donors and funding schemes preferably need to be readily available.

 What about €40 million for making transparent everything we know already in the world about the concept of justice and what we do not yet know?

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 37

Focus Area/partnership 2 | Conflict zones: integrating security, justice and development perspectives

‒ Builds on- and works with focus area 1: Uses a better understanding of justice being done, seen to be done and felt to be done as the central idea to reinforce peace-building, bringing together security-, development, and rule of law development policies. The partnership is aimed at developing comprehensive peace-building strategies that are more sustainable in view of the fact that they put „justice‟ – qualitatively and quantitatively better understood – at their heart. Brings together and works to enhance peace diplomacy, transitional justice processes, prosecution of mass atrocities criminality, ICC complementarity strategies, and rule of law development and to integrate these more effectively. ‒ Concrete activities could be educating “justice ambassadors” (diplomats who bring the justice perspective to the negotiation table; the example above); ‒ Alternative framing: “Holistic dispute resolution: Integrating security, justice and development perspectives”. ‒ Or: Justice in peace building: from justice diplomacy until acceptance of fair compensation

1. There is a clear – preferably global - need for comprehensive, inclusive work on them.  Worldwide, many experts and countries work on security in failed states, peace-building and transitional justice. The Hague could bring in a more broad justice perspective in all phases of the peace-building process for all concerned. The earlier this perspective is considered, when agendas are set and expectations about issues of justice, order, security and peace are formed, the more sustainable peace-building efforts are likely to be.  The Failed States Index and the Global Peace Index provide a measure of the seriousness of the problem of weak, failing and failed states (with anywhere between 30-40 of the 192 UN member States falling into the most serious category). States are the basic ordering unit on the globe and form the basis for the international legal order. In our interdependent world the weakness of one state is a problem for other states (as the Global Peace Index also empirically shows). Finding more effective ways to deal with the problem of weak states is therefore a matter of great urgency.  The notion of justice could be both a new element in such strategies and the linking pin between security, and social and economic development strategies. There is a good doctrinal and empirical basis to build from by key thinkers: see work by, for instance, by Paul Collier, William Easterly, Ashraf Ghani and Claire Lockhart, Mark Duffield, This work provides an excellent foundation on which to add the justice component, which will, in turn, enrich and strengthen overall knowledge on which to base effective peace building strategies.  Justice perspectives can also provide a linking pin between the activities of the judiciary, prosecution, defense, police, legal services, which are usually set up as separate units.  Informs strategies to prevent states from gliding into failed status and post-conflict development strategies, including peace treaty implementation, empowerment/democracy policies, reconciliation policies,; anti-terrorism policies. It would include not only transitional justice (informational justice, procedural justice, procedures for restorative/retributive justice) but also distributive justice (compensation mechanisms in the broadest sense), retributive justice (for the main perpetrators in The Hague or in the country where rights violations took place) and pragmatic justice (what works sustainably).  Closely connected with ICC mandate and complementarity challenge (Kampala resolution of the Assembly of States Parties on Complementarity) and the UN Secretary-General‟s Report on Strengthening and Coordinating UN Rule of Law Activities (August 2010)

38

2. They are illustrative of the HIGJ-vision and of the reason why the HIGJ is in The Hague.  The international legal order and the national legal orders can no longer be separated.

 The Netherlands has a provision in its constitution in support of the international legal order;

 It was in The Hague that the idea of “no peace without justice” was first given hands and feet with the international criminal tribunals that were set up in the 1990s.

 The Hague is the seat of the permanent court that embodies a justice component to rebuilding after mass atrocities: the ICC. It also hosts a number of ad hoc international criminal tribunals. In addition, there is a direct link with other institutions such as the International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the OCSE High Commissioner on Minorities. There is, therefore, a wealth of experience to build on.

 The Netherlands, and the EU rank amongst the biggest donors to low income countries; large amounts of money are spent to rebuilding so-called weak or failing states;

 Directly linked to the complementarity challenge of the ICC;

 Directly linked to the the Dutch “3-D approach to nation building”

 Linked, more broadly, to the The Hague peace-building experience and extensive rule of law and peace networks already present in The Hague (for instance: ECCP, Hague Rule of Law Network.

 There is clearly something „new‟ to add, based recent existing work and building on that.

 The Hague DNA can contribute to peace building efforts.

3. They would benefit from an innovative tool or agenda-setting concept offered by the HIGJ.

 Justice is not yet a known entity in the entire peace-building process. A lot of work has been done on peace building; bringing in the justice component could greatly enhance what already is and build on that.

 The rule of law strategies are, generally compartmentalized within (between areas of law) and in respect of other areas (security and development). This is seen as a tremendous problem which needs to be resolved. The central justice concept of the HIGJ – qualifying and quantifying justice and, on the basis of that, improving institutions, strategies, and policies, could be the linking pin between these compartments.

 The States Parties of the ICC face a challenge due to the fact that many states in which the ICC is active or needs to be active do not have proper functioning legal systems;

 The UN Secretary-General in the context his (support of) peace diplomacy, and rule of law/human rights policies, would be helped if the justice component could be more integrated into his efforts.

 The EU, as a core funder of state building processes, would see more integration of its current policies and could be provided with more measurability of effectiveness.

 After the development of indexes on „governance‟ (Mo Ibrahim Good Governance Index), the „peace‟ (Global Peace Index), and various rule of law indexes (inter alia, the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index), one could envisage ways of making the notion of „Justice‟ more measurable, perhaps developing a Hague Justice Index.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 39

4. Each of them builds upon 3 or more hot spots of world class knowledge.  International law expertise in Leiden, The Hague, Amsterdam, and elsewhere;

 HiiL work on rule of law and measuring rule of law, Van Vollenhoven Institute (Leiden) work on rule of law and development;

 Hague Rule of Law Network

 Peace-building expertise built up in and around The Hague: the WRR, ISS, ECCP, Clingendael, HCSS, the Conflict and Human Rights focus area of Utrecht university; the Dutch Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Justice, and Defense; and development agencies in The Hague;

 International organizations in the Hague: the ICC, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Lebanon Tribunal, the OCSE High Commissioner on Minorities. In addition the International Crisis Group in Brussels, and the OECD-Development Cooperation Directorate (DAC) in Paris.

5. Innovative and constructive partnerships can be built with the institutions based in the Netherlands as well as outside.

 Key will be connecting different worlds. There is a good rule of law knowledge basis to start from in the Netherlands, both national and international rule of law (for example: Leiden, Amsterdam, HiiL, Tilburg, Van Vollenhoven Institute, Utrecht, Clingendael, HCSS)

 There is a good practice base to depart from as well: Dutch Ministries of Justice, Foreign Affairs, and Defense, OXFAM/NOVIB, Centre for International Legal Cooperation;

 There is practice from the tribunals and court in the Hague, particularly the ICC, for which the complementarity challenge is a key factor.

 Outside The Hague, for example: Peace Research Institute Oslo, International Centre for Transitional Justice, Open Society Justice Initiative, World Bank, UNDP, School of Regulation, Justice and Diplomacy at Australian National University, Folke Bernadotte Academy, UK-DFID, Canadian-CIDA.

 Build to foster South-South justice diplomacy. There is a wealth of experience there, untapped.

 NGO‟s that work on post-conflict compensation mechanisms in low income countries (Oxfam has contacts: Rwanda, Congo)

 Hague Rule of Law Network

 ICC States Parties

6. Quick wins in one year (e.g. executive master programme) and breakthrough within three years possible. In one year:

 Study on justice diplomacy by experts on international relations, international negotiations, international law, political science, and social justice, in first instance, based on wealth of practice available in The Hague (mainly ICC situations). Bringing what is known about justice from other areas to these situations, examining peace building experience and knowledge for justice components or lack thereof;

 Best and worst practices fed into a „justice and peace building database‟;

 Main elements of a curriculum for executive program in justice diplomacy ready, which will be the basis for a curriculum for a masters programme on in justice and peace-building; Executive programme and, finally Masters/LLM Rule of Law (HiiL-led international consortium, with Asser, Utrecht, Van Vollenhoven Instituut, Australian National University.

 Best practices for compensation mechanisms in post-conflict zones;

 Research based negotiation strategies with justice component; continuously tested and improved.

 First draft evaluation mechanism for justice in peace-building developed;

 Emphasis: facilitate South-South cooperation in justice diplomacy.

40

In three years:

 50 justice diplomats available

 200 masters in justice and peace-building trained; alumni programme of practitioners which feeds into research

 Evaluation mechanism for facets of justice for all concerned in peace-building efforts implemented in 3 conflict zones, with trends and improvements measured each half year

 Collection of best practices of justice and peace-building

 Model tools and model programs for the (justice component in the) peace building process, including measures for success;

7. The programmes should be attractive to potential donors and funding schemes preferably need to be readily available.

 What about 0,01 % of the total amount the EU and its member states spend on development (around €50 billion)? By integrating security, economic and social development and rule of law strategies with the help of quantifiable and qualifiable justice components, EU aid gets more value for money. And more stable states, with more justice and rule of law, are better for EU business.

 EU, World Bank, ICC States Parties, national development aid agencies (EU and elsewhere);

 Matching by universities, who have an interest in showcasing practically relevant research;

 Engage increasing South-South development cooperation, now increasing to over USD 15 billion annually.

 Executive Programme Rule of Law: potential donors identified;

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 41

Focus Area/partnership 3 | Courts and conflict mechanisms: towards examples of excellence

‒ Exploring dynamics and interplay between different institutional settings and processes through which justice is implemented. This includes any decision maker or decision making body that adjudicates disputes: formal justice organs, arbitration panels and dispute resolution mechanisms, informal (community) courts, jury panels in developing countries and the like (but not processes which are purely facilitative, such as mediation). ‒ Partnerships developing the best and most effective examples of international courts, hybrid, and national courts: fair process/outcome, efficient, speedy, transparent, evidence based/what works; ‒ Included in the program are mechanisms for dispute resolution that are linked to the courts, facilitating conflict resolution „in the shadow of a court decision” ‒ Alternative wording is: „‟Complementary justice models and institutions: „Best practices‟ for the prevention and adjudication of human rights violations‟‟. Takes into account the Hague specialisation in international adjudication and its pluralist context as a starting point for the overall goal of „leading by example‟.

1. There is a clear – preferably global - need for comprehensive, inclusive work on them.

 Justice models and institutions (in the broad sense as discussed above) are an essential element of most dispute mechanisms. Without access to a neutral decision making body, power relations are likely to dominate outcomes and processes.

 In a globalized world with pluriform systems of law, courts (again, broadly understood) are increasingly important in applying coherent rules to a specific case (often worded as: “judge-made law based on precedent from a specific case is becoming more and more important”.

 World-wide and on all levels of social ordering, the forms of justice have to work in difficult settings, under great pressures from many quarters representing special interests. Maintaining neutrality and independence is a challenge.

 There seems to be a call for more and more types of courts/dispute resolution mechanisms in different, specialized, fields: land rights, financial products, CSR standards, environmental disasters, special war reparations, etc..

 There are increasing relationships and tensions between more formal mechanisms, such as „real‟ courts, and less formal mechanisms like Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and village elder courts.

 The International Court of Justice, now almost 100 years located in the Peace Palace, has not proven to be the primary dispute mechanism for states some thought it might become. The international criminal tribunals and courts are but one part of providing justice to post conflict situations. Informal justice mechanisms are often resorted to and in some parts of the world predominate, although tensions grow due to competition with formal mechanisms whose jurisdictional ambit has a tendency to expand as more areas come to be regulated by law. The diversity of complementarity and conflict between the existing forms of justice generates a problem of choice and potential fragmentation of decision-making. It is yet to be matched by a comprehensive map of dispute-resolution mechanisms.

 Worldwide, many formal justice mechanisms (courts) suffer from high caseloads and backlogs which eventually negatively affect the justice consumers. For users of the services of courts, access to justice is often problematic, procedures are often overly formalistic, difficult to understand and, especially in international courts, are sometimes ill-framed for the consumers to meaningfully participate in them as „subjects‟ rather than „objects‟.

 Costs are a worry for the courts in The Hague; costs in excess of hundred million of dollars a year have resulted in trying a few dozens of defendants.

42

 Worldwide, courts also need to deal with issues of independence and in many places, corruption.

 Some topics that may be of specific interest for interdisciplinary research could be models for hearing of witnesses, judgments by default, the role of victims in the procedure, selection of judges; those involved in international courts are uncertain about the effects of outcomes in these courts on the affected population in post-conflict situations. Domestic courts may face a similar uncertainty about the effects of their interventions. This generates the global problem of legitimacy of the predominant forms of delivering justice, against the backdrop of (perceivably) more legitimate (effective, cheap, responsive) solutions.

 The future of international criminal justice lies with national criminal justice models and there is a need to equip domestic adjudicators with the necessary knowledge and insights into the specific normative framework of international criminal law, particularly with regard to crime definitions and liability theories.

 National and international courts increasingly need to work together; international courts increasingly interact as well.

 The European Court for Human Rights even experiences a situation of budget constraints in combination with high case loads that may threaten its sustainability. Other courts in developing countries, as well as in developed economies, face similar problems.

2. They are illustrative of the HIGJ-vision and of the reason why the HIGJ is in The Hague.

 The Hague Legal Capital is clearly linked to its courts;

 The Hague as a City of Peace and Justice is an apposite place to explore in-depth the special objectives, needs and challenges of post-conflict justice, insofar as the international courts for which it is a seat must come as part of more comprehensive and systemic solutions for preventing and settling disputes, peace-building and pre-empting large-scale violations of human rights.

 The Hague, as seat of the ICC, is also the „seat‟ of the tremendous complementarity challenge which the ICC jurisdiction faces. This means that effective and cost effective ways must be found to build national capacity to deal with perpetrators of serious violations of human rights.

 Although most justice is probably created by people themselves, within their relationships, courts (in this very broad sense) contribute to justice by providing “the shadow of the law” in which people can come to fair and just outcomes and by making decisions in cases where actors are unable to find their own justice.

 There are many court/judges networks in The Hague.

3. They would benefit from an innovative tool or agenda-setting concept offered by the HIGJ.

 The methods for making transparent whether justice is done, justice is felt to be done, and justice seen to be done, could be applied to court proceedings.

 The focal area incorporates a number of topics that are in need of interdisciplinary research and research that contextualizes the questions of institutions, procedures and models in the appropriate social, political, economic setting. This would include the issues of improving the decision-making process and accuracy – linguistic and cultural dimensions of forms of fact-finding problems of eyewitness and other evidence in international criminal courts; lack of evidence-sharing between various international courts; lack of uniform guidelines or criteria for the evaluation of evidence; abbreviated proceedings and judgments by default, the proper role of victims in the procedure, selection of judges and other principal professional actors in the proceedings.

 A depository of best practices, and strategies to comply with common human rights and other standards which have been developed over past decades;

 Tracking judicial independence, effective alternatives to formal courts, access to courts.

 Building of effective „field courts‟ (again, broadly understood) which can be set up and deployed at short notice in states which have a acute shortage, for example, in a post conflict or other post crisis situation.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 43

 Dealing with the ICC complementarity challenge and its interaction with national courts (broadly understood) is one of the highest priorities for the ICC jurisdiction. The States Parties would greatly benefit from a better understanding on how to strengthen/build national capacity;

 Courts are a critical element of all rule of law development strategies (see focus area 2).

4. Each of them builds upon 3 or more hot spots of world class knowledge.  ACIL/HiiL international criminal procedures project; Grotius Centre‟s project on „Post-conflict justice and local ownership‟, with a focus on the impact of the ICC operations on target countries; University of Utrecht‟s research on the impact of the lack of the ICC involvement on target countries (Latin America)

 As to substantive international criminal law: UvA/DOMAC project on the impact of international courts on domestic criminal procedures and ACIC/VU‟s project on the harmonization of international criminal law

 ACIL/OUP project/global network Oxford Reports on International Law in Domestic Courts (ILDC)

 HiiL Highest Courts project and its network of partners

 World class justices and court management from many different countries at the international courts in The Hague.

 Expertise on sharia courts and other religion or custom-based courts;

 The Hague Highest Courts Network; an international network of highest courts judges and researchers; South-South dialogue

 Brandeis Institute for International Judges (Austria)

 Other judicial networks: Venice Commission (Joint Council on Constitutional Justice), European Association of Supreme Courts.

 HiiL international research group on the international judicial dialogue.

 Victimologists in Tilburg (Intervict), including specialists in PTSS and the impact of judicial procedures on healing, REDRESS (London), and elsewhere;

 The Peace palace Library, with judgments and practices of courts all around the world;

 CILC expertise in strengthening court systems in low income countries.

 HiiL-TISCO Access to Justice measuring tool.

 Institut Haut Etudes sur la Justice (IHEJ), Paris

 International Association of Prosecutors, The Hague

5. Innovative and constructive partnerships can be built with the institutions based in the Netherlands as well as outside.

 Above-mentioned Dutch universities

 The Hague-based international criminal courts and tribunals

 World class economists specialized in courts and litigation in Madrid and elsewhere

 The network of the Council of Europe (CEPEJ) with access to performance data.

 The World Bank and the developments banks with many data and experience on court reform.

 The Hague Highest Courts network facilitated by HIIL

 Masters on Judicial Studies (IHEJ)

 National judicial academies, like the École National de la Magistrature. Emphasis as a facilitator of South-South dialogue.

44

6. Quick wins in one year; breakthrough within three years possible. In one year:

 Multi-faceted evaluation criteria for courts have been developed, with particular attention for the justice needs of the ultimate beneficiaries of court services, possibly followed-up by the project to assess how these perceptions of goals of justice can be most effectively addressed (improving the performance of courts and/or by channeling some classes of disputes to alternative fora);

 Executive Master Program in Global Justice, Rule of Law and Human Rights Administration has been set up in coordination with HAC partners to complement the existing master programmes in UL, UvA, UU, and VU

 In cooperation with the ICC, ICTY and SCSL, drawing a set of recommendations on completion strategies for international/ized criminal courts (particular focus on „situation completion strategy‟ for the ICC)

 Project to facilitate jurisprudential cross-fertilization between international/hybrid criminal courts and national courts

 Finding an optimal and balanced relationship between courts and non-legal mechanisms with competing competence in post-conflict settings.

 25 examples of great courts across the globe have been found and described.

 Based on this, justice sector reform strategies of donors are more effective.

 Hague Highest Courts Network elaborated with web 2.0 platform;

 First executive programme: judicial studies.

In three years:

 A comprehensive research project to ensure high level of competence, impartiality and independence of judges (and prosecutors) working for international/internationalized criminal courts, in the form of uniform guidelines for the selection of judicial officers, including „international bar‟ exams;

 Programme for monitoring and improving the performance of international and domestic courts adjudicating serious crimes, from the first to the last instance, with a view to drawing „worst and /or best practices‟ and facilitating cross-fertilization.

 Elaborating a solid proposal for enhancing the forms of human rights supervision over international/ hybrid criminal courts (ranging from introducing respective competences to the paternal body, e.g. the Assembly of States Parties for the ICC to submitting those courts to supervision by regional courts (ECHR) to the establishment of the global supervisory organ/HR court)

 Headhunter‟s database which pools an interdisciplinary group of experts available to perform as amici curiae, expert witnesses and consultants before international criminal tribunals, short-listing per discipline(s) of competence (socially social psychology, psychiatry, linguistics, culturology, anthropology) and giving the judges and prosecutors free online access to that database. Constantly expanding and updating the database, with the possibility of having seminars and roundtable talks attended by tribunal staff.

 Offering to one or more international courts in The Hague to execute a joint program with HAC partners in the course of which international and interdisciplinary research meetings will be held to boost interaction between judges and researchers. Such meetings could especially be devoted to risk- assessment of proposed important changes of procedure or modes of operation

 An interdisciplinary handbook on court procedure and court management, culminating a comprehensive comparative research on these matters.

 A set of innovations in court process and management to be developed and brought to the market by companies in and around The Hague.

 A comprehensive handbook on justice models: vol I drawing a comprehensive typology of world‟s justice models; vol II describing the representative examples of justice models and institutions across the globe and vol III advancing recommendations/matrix on the use of those models, attaching the advantages and disadvantages of each of them to the typical real-life circumstances.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 45

 Programs for learning and improvement of 15 great courts in 3 substance areas and 10 countries have been developed, implemented, mapped and monitored during 2 years. The lessons from the process have been published.

 Among these courts are at least 1 supreme court of a nation, 1 court for commercial matters, 1 specialized criminal court and 4 courts for the problems of every day life for individuals.

 Court architecture and the possible influence different court buildings may have on all participants, in particular the psychological impact on judges, victims, perpetrators, spectators, lawyers is studied. Around the world, there are many examples of court houses which have been designed from clear visions on justice, accessibility, and much more. An exposition on court architecture and the psychology of it has been established at The Hague Gemeentemuseum.

 5 innovations in court process and management have been developed and brought to the market by companies in and around The Hague.

 Concept of „field courts‟ allowing for quick increase of court capacity in post crisis situations, operational.

 Transparent ways of financing courts and models for their sustainability (in view of high case loads)

 Masters Programme on Judical Studies (IHEJ-led consortium)

7. The programmes should be attractive to potential donors and funding schemes preferably need to be readily available.

 Courts are the hallmarks of justice.

 Each of the participants in the partnership has an increased access to own sources of funding because of the promising, challenging and innovative partnership.

 Donors of justice sector reform programmes would see a more effective spending of their resources;

 Assembly of States Parties of the ICC have an interest in increased national court capacity;

46

Focus Area/partnership 4 | Making promises stick: compliance with self-regulation and human rights

‒ Mechanisms for conflict resolution around major investments from multinationals, project developers and governments (mining, major plants, infrastructure, major housing projects etc.). These investments affect work relationships, housing, farming, land rights, human rights, environment and can cause corruption and other major disruptions in social life. Conflicts about scarce resources and revenues are likely to ensue as well. ‒ The mechanisms should work and lead to results that are acceptable for both all parties involves (host states, other states, multinationals, international organizations, NGO‟s, others) ‒ Alternative framing: Accountability and compliance: Enhancing the impact and implementation of regulatory systems

1. There is a clear – preferably global - need for comprehensive, inclusive work on them.

 These investments have a major impact on social structures and the environment. This is a main source of conflict worldwide, a challenge from an economic development perspective, as well as a major source of security risks and sometimes even armed conflict.

 The present main strategies of civil society to deal with damages are to use the megaphone and the courts. Both strategies do not offer sustainable solutions for both the beneficiaries or the alleged causers of alleged damages.

 The UN has opted for a framework developed by its Special Raporteur on Human Rights and Business, Professor John Ruggie (of which greater access to remedies is one of the three pillars). One of the possible outcomes of this process is that an institute will be formed that facilitates the compliance and dispute mechanisms that are needed for this throughout the world.

 The Ruggie team explores which grievance handling mechanisms work and do not work. They are piloting and researching farms, mines throughout the world. The goal is to set up supporting facility for dispute and compliance mechanisms. This will probably have a facilitative head office, regional Focus Areas and main activities in and around the local communities where the problem sits and can be solved. Knowledge, skills, good examples, best practices, credibility and legitimacy are needed and have to organized through a network.

 The challenges are big. Many different types of conflict can arise out of these investments. It is difficult to reach the company mind about these issues, also because local subcontractors do much of the work. Developing long term relationships is key here .The relationship between investor and community is multi-faceted and lasting. There are not yet many clear examples of these.

 Mediation does not seem enough to deal with this complexity. There is a need for a dispute system design approach, but the theoretical framework for this has not yet been developed.

 Practitioners move through this field intuitively, sometimes doing good, sometimes failing.

 There are major regulatory and accountability issues here. From a legal perspective, this incorporates not only regulation by private actors, but also international regulation such as human rights conventions, peace treaties or security arrangements. The predominant thinking is that we may not necessarily require more regulation, norms or institutions, but better monitoring, enforcement etc (e.g., terrorism, human rights, environment, global markets). Theme has a link to early Hague codifications (Hague Regulations 1899/1907).

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 47

 In many countries there is a distrust of neutral professional third parties. Local leaders can get things done, but overall the local population does not have a belief that the current processes result in fair outcomes. Processes are not transparent enough and lack rigor.

 Once good models have been developed, they can serve as an example not only for other multinational companies, but also for the emerging giant corporations in low income countries who are still in the process of defining the relationship with local communities and the environment.

2. They are illustrative of the HIGJ-vision and of the reason why the HIGJ is in The Hague.

 The Hague is seen as a city that can add/facilitatie legitimacy and credibility to such a facility. It can also facilitate knowledge exchange, learning and reflection on these issues.

 The Hague already supports the HUGO Program (World Legal Forum and others)

 Netherlands is a nation with many multinational companies, with Royal Dutch Shell as one of the biggest, located in The Hague. The country has learned to cope with their activities. It has a tradition in urban planning processes (ruimtelijke ordening), struggled with regulation and deregulation,

 At the same time, this may pose a problem. The Hague may not be a neutral place, as perceived by people from Nigeria. Need of a place is less necessary in virtual world. Seen from the US, The Hague may be seen as Europe and not being very relevant.

 Regional Focus Areas would certainly be necessary. In Latin America ,(Spanish speaker). and elsewhere.

3. They would benefit from an innovative tool or agenda-setting concept offered by the HIGJ.

 The field misses an orientation towards fair and acceptable outcomes. Justice, in all its facets, being done, seen to be done, and felt to be done could provide such an orientation.

 The assessment tools and mapping instruments developed under Focus Area 1 could be helpful for the facility, as would the partnership approach offered by the HIGJ.

4. Each of them builds upon 3 or more hot spots of world class knowledge.

 Ruggie and his team are far ahead of most others.

 Centres of excellence in environmental law and class actions can be found in (networks between) universities and within law firms.

 The combined dispute resolution knowledge in the networks between practice. Ministry of Justice, universities and courts is of high international quality. Contributions to dispute system design as well.

 HiiL is developing research in this field. There is also expertise in Utrecht University, Radboud University, and others areas.

 Hague Public-Private Governance Network (coordinated by HiiL)

5. Innovative and constructive partnerships can be built with the institutions based in the Netherlands as well as outside.  John Ruggie team at Kennedy School of Government  World class networks of excellent practitioners around it  World Legal Forum activities in this field, supported by City of The Hague and Ministry of Economic Affairs  Networks of NGO‟s and local universities who can use the knowledge,  This could grow into a partnership similar to the Accountancy Standard setting Panel/Climate Change panel.  HiiL international research team on Effectiveness of Private Regulation  Hague Public-Private Governance Network (coordinated by HiiL)

48

6. Quick wins in one year (e.g. executive master programme) and breakthrough within three years possible. In one year:

 Getting success stories out there.

 Establishing terms of reference for acceptable, fair outcomes and processes

 Combining the research by Ruggie network with dispute system design approach in order to establish what we know and what we do not know yet about what works

 Joint training.

In three years:

 Clearinghouse for what is out there Best practices. Seeing what works. Evaluating what works. Guidance to what is working.

 Processes for making this field evidence based have been developed.

 Processes and tools for mapping and processing these complex situations have been developed and tested in 20 situations, of which10 pass a benchmark of acceptable fairness and justice.

 Mediation and fact-finding processes with teeth have been created.

7. The programmes should be attractive to potential donors and funding schemes preferably need to be readily available.

 Once a big credibly neutral donor can be found, additional contributions from business could probably obtained through a fund, managed by world leaders with an impeccable reputation.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 49

Focus Area/partnership 5 | Growing justice bottom up: models for institutions

‒ Processes and dispute mechanisms that facilitate access to justice (human rights issues, gender issues, land conflicts, community work) ‒ ADR, informal, restorative justice, reconciliation, microjustice , paralegals ‒ Local governance and peace-building with limited resources ‒ Follow up Commission Albright Legal Empowerment of the Poor (development, security and justice).

1. There is a clear – preferably global - need for comprehensive, inclusive work on them.  International law, security and human rights specialists increasingly see access to justice and implementation of rights for the ultimate beneficiaries as a key priority;

 The High Level Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor (co-chaired by Madeleine Albright and Hernando de Soto) was the first to carry out a world-wide quick scan and estimated that 4 billion people lack sufficient access to justice; these data are confirmed by major collections of rule of law indicators such as Governance Matters and World Justice Project;

 Justice needs studies consistently show that major areas where people feel they have insufficient access to justice are identity documents, family disputes (divorce, child support), entitlements to land and housing, employment rights, neighbor problems, common resource sharing (water, fishing), victimization by crime and (the other side of this coin) unlawful detention.

 The rights based approach to development has become a major force in development and is partly overlapping with the economic consensus on the need for better protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts;

 At the same time, these approaches are not yet accepted as global principles and practices, suggesting they are still felt to be too imperfect; at least three challenges stand out: 1. How to accommodate views on justice and on social/economic development which focus on relationships and on communities? (next to the undeniable merits of approaches that focus on individuals); 2. How to prevent that challenges of the status quo develop into polarization and protracted legal conflict? An emerging view in conflict theory and modern dispute mechanisms is to focus on interests and restoring communication, using various sources of law as indicators of possible solutions that can be acceptable to all concerned, rather than “the law” as the ultimate solution; 3. How to deal with the way institutions that are associated with rights and the rule of law are nowadays perceived? Major world institutions like the UN, the EU, the WorldBank, the IMF and the World Courts in The Hague are not only seen as benevolent institutions, working for the common good. This is also true for national political systems, for courts and for the national infrastructure for supporting development. Increasingly, they are also seen as expensive, slow bureaucracies, as a refuge for office seekers, as partisan and as producers of policies that are out of touch with what people really need.

 Part of the answer may come from bottom-up, microsolutions, firmly grounded in local communities, at the base of the pyramid.

 They do not only emerge locally, driven by local interests and actors, powered by the internet. They are also widely seen as promising avenues for development.

50

 There is a wealth of promising practices that emerge bottom-up (legal empowerment programs, public legal education efforts, innovative legal aid projects, microjustice, judicial facilitators, paralegals, problemsolving local courts, mediation programs, innovative policing practices).

 Until now, they lack a sound theoretical perspective that can help to study them systematically, to learn what works, and to make the field more evidence based. Many evaluation studies are carried out, but until now they lack common methodologies and benchmarks that make their outcomes comparable.

2. They are illustrative of the HIGJ-vision and of the reason why the HIGJ is in The Hague.  Think global, act local: the burden of injustice ultimately falls on individual people and communities. They suffer from the denial of opportunity to live in harmonious, fair relationships. They miss the protection of investments that is necessary to become prosperous. They have to cope with the consequences of gross injustices that entered their lives. They have to relate with government agents and judges listen to their voices.

 When people are asked about justice being done, justice seen to be done, and justice felt to be done, they usually point to situations in their own lives, in their own communities, and in their own professional work where they experienced injustice; the desire to prevent such injustice for future generations is probably the strongest motivation to work on (global) justice.

 The Hague is a city of peace and justice. Although it is widely known for its contributions to “ top-down” justice (world courts, international treaties), it also sits in a country which has a long tradition in supporting economic and social development with a strong civil society, that usually starts from rights and/or fairness principles.

 The Netherlands is (slightly behind the UK and with Australia, Germany and South Africa) a leader in innovative, countrywide legal aid policies (legal aid across the population and for all important justice needs, strongly developed legal expenses insurance, nation wide mediation programs, socio-legal assistance, debt problem assistance, online and telephone dispute services, victim support, Veiligheidshuizen, and more).

3. They would benefit from an innovative tool or agenda-setting concept offered by the HIGJ.  Justice as a central concept, as well as the focus on dispute mechanims (in the broadest sense) could become an organizing principle for legal empowerment/bottom-up justice efforts.

 The measurement tools, benchmarks, and research methods developed under Focus Area! could become a catalyst for a partnership that leads to a sustainable effort to make bottom up justice processes transparent and evidence based;

4. Each of them builds upon 3 or more hot spots of world class knowledge.

 Legal antropologists and sociologists at Leiden (Van Vollenhoven Institute), the Institute of Social Studies and elsewhere;

 Dispute system and microjustice specialists in Tilburg, Leuven and elsewhere;

 Legal aid facilities, mediation programs and on line dispute resolution facilities that are seen as an example for Europe and elsewhere

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 51

5. Innovative and constructive partnerships can be built with the institutions based in the Netherlands as well as outside.

 The network of justice 100+ NGO‟s in low income countries supported by Oxfam Novib and various other NGO‟s;

 The Rule of Law network supported by HIIL.

 The network around the Facilitadores Judiciales programs in Nicaragua and other Latin American countries, facilitated by the Organization of American States, supported by the Dutch government/embassy

 The network around the Justice for the Poor programs of the World Bank and the legal empowerment programs of UNDP;

 The Legal Empowerment and paralegal networks that are in the process of being set up by World Bank and Open Society Justice Initiative (linking innovative programs in Sierra Leone, Indonesia, Philippines, South Africa, India);

 The network of the International Legal Aid Group and the Legal Services Research Council (facilitated from the UK);

 The emerging partnership(s) on microjustice forming around Oxfam Novib, DAS Rechtsbijstand, Nijenrode University, Tisco (Tilburg University), ILA/Microjustice4all and local NGO‟s in Mali, Bangladesh, Egypt, Rwanda, Uga, Nicaragua and Bolivia and other countries;

6. Quick wins in one year (e.g. executive master programme) and breakthrough within three years possible. In one year:

 Descriptions of 200 good practices/working methods in creating bottom up justice;

 World class master program in legal empowerment, bottom up justice, microjustice set up by a consortium of The Hague institutions, helped by universities.

 Basic epidemiology of justice needs of individuals and communities, combining data from 100+ existing studies;

 Collection, careful description and of 25 major innovations in the field of bottom up justice, evaluated against criteria that are transparent and based on the methodologies developed under Focus Area 1.

 Rudimentary measuring access to justice methods applied in 20 projects worldwide.

 Study on sustainable legal empowerment services (accessible and sufficiently low cost so that they can be funded; funding models).

 10 legal aid/legal empowerment NGO‟s agree to be supported to work in an evidence based way, monitored and striving for financial sustainability, covering 5?? million people with justice needs.

In three years:  Basic world wide epidemiology of justice needs of individuals and communities, using state of the art legal needs study methodologies;  First attempt to (interactively with researchers and practitioners) formulate best practices for facilitating 10 most important justice needs/problems of individuals. Described in such a way that they can be adjusted by practitioners to local skills, situations and cultures.  Learnings from 10 showcase services presented  50 services/projects that agreed to be supported to work in an evidence based way, monitored and striving for financial sustainability, covering 100 million people with justice needs.  50 such services emerge spontaneously, covering another 30 million people with justice needs.  Working in an evidence based, sustainable way is a serious option for leading legal aid/bottom up justice organizations and provider in the world.  Validated measuring access to justice methods applied in 100 projects worldwide.

52

7. The programmes should be attractive to potential donors and funding schemes preferably need to be readily available.

 Open Society Justice Initiative, World Bank and UNDP have the intention to sustain efforts in this field; major foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Gates) have supported (smaller scale) efforts in the past;

 A large scale partnership could attract funds in a similar way as major health care initiatives and initiatives in (evidence based) agriculture.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 53

Part VI | Conclusions

Fact54 -finding and building blocks for programming

The interactive process that lies at the heart of the recommendations and conclusions contained in this report has provided clear insight into what is perceived to be the competitive advantage of The Hague. From that the knowledge and practice base on which the HIGJ can be built became visible. And it has done more: it has provided four very promising focus areas in which work can start relatively quickly, supported by existing or embryonic partnerships which can be developed.

So, what is the substance of the HIGJ in a nutshell, as it emerged from our collaborative effort?

To make justice more quantifiable and qualifiable and to use that to build better, more efficient, more

effective institutions and processes which can help solve conflicts. Over the past decades notions like „rule

of law‟, „peace‟, and „governance‟ have become much more tangible and useable by collaborative

partnerships between experts from practice and political scientists, economists, anthropologists, lawyers,

sociologists, etc.. The HIGJ will do that with justice. Based on that work, the Institute will provide

innovative building blocks for better peace processes, better post conflict nation building, better courts and

tribunals, better conflict mechanisms around major investments by multinationals and better legal

empowerment. How? It was obvious for all those that have worked with us that this can only be done by

using an open, reflexive, networked way of working in which knowledge and improvements in practice are

built in collaboration, having the best experts available from different fields work together.

The seven criteria which were used by the Commission – based on the Terms of Reference and further developed by the Steering Group – have proven to be very effective and useable. They ensure that innovative methods will be applied to the conflict resolution mechanisms that are most urgent for stakeholders and practitioners, on such a scale that breakthroughs are possible that have real effects on the lives of beneficiaries, They also guarantee that the HIGJ involves partners for these focus areas, which have the specific know how that is necessary to solve a problem step by step. Finally, they prevent that the HIGJ tackles issues that others are in a better position to take on. These criteria deserve to be put at the heart of the working methods of the Institute.

The participants in the process also indentified challenges, all mainly connected with the danger of living up to too many expectations. These include:

 A wish/drive for comprehensiveness, interdisciplinarity, integration, which may become overwhelming. Choices will have to be made, boundaries will have to be set;

 The wish to let HIGJ be a leading partner from the beginning. Rome was not built in one day; it takes time to build a world class institution.

 It may not always be easy to avoid competition with existing institutions while involving them at the same time.

 There will be many wishes from many stakeholders and many wishes from the demand side. Again, choices will be necessary.

 A balance will have to be struck between going for quick wins and also slowly but deliberately training to reach the Olympic level.

 The substance itself is challenging. What came out of the interactive process is, in many ways new (that was, of course, what was asked): global justice is a problematic, multi-layered, challenging concept, especially in the volatile, globalized world of today.

 Partnerships are critical: the HIGJ will not be able to do it alone.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 55

 There will be pressure to perform, to show results. In some respect we are only beginning to understand how conflict resolution mechanisms work. It will be important to take enough time to make sure that you have asked all the right questions. It is those right questions that will lead to the best results.

 Mistakes will be made. That, in itself is not a problem. What will be critical is how the new Institute will deal with learning from them in the process of building the substantive and methodological innovations that will lie at the heart of the HIGJ.

After the presentation of this report, further issues will appear on the horizon, and we take the liberty of mentioning just a few of them.

The outcomes from this fact-finding process show that the focus of the HIGJ will have to be world class justice research brokerage, partnership building, stitching knowledge and people together and flawless management for results. This is likely to have consequences for the team, for the building, for the governance structure, and for the working methods. As indicated: a networked way of working would appear to be important. It will be about connecting, bridging, and providing a podium on which the best, most innovative, most creative experts from practice and academia can work together to solve global justice problems.

Every institute needs values. A global justice institute needs flawless ethical standards. This is very difficult to achieve, but in some way also very easy for this institute: justice (in all its facets) should become the standard.

The experiences of all people involved in the three months that the Commission has worked on this report provide many very valuable lessons and clues how to proceed. We experienced how to deal with an enormous number of stakeholders, all with different interests, opinions and pieces of information. People found their role in the process, liked it or did not like it, had great moments of fulfillment, felt hurt by not being included, recovered, and talked about all of this with each other. They started to look at the events in the world and in The Netherlands through the eyes of HIGJ justice in all its facets. To say it colloquially: a buzz has been created, through openness, sharing, and inclusion. And this buzz needs to be kept alive if the ideas and enthusiasm are not to peter out. We therefore strongly recommend that the movement which has been created continues after this report has been presented. Work on refining, testing, improving the building blocks it contains must continue. The more than one hundred people that have been involved thus far must be kept involved, and the group must be enlarged.

This was the 1% inspiration. Is this what we want? Then all we now need is the 99% transpiration that innovation experts always speak of when they describe how to get from great ideas to practical outcomes.

56

Annex 1| Concrete results in the pipeline/knowledge gaps

See Table sent to participants in International Stakeholder Workshop;

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 57

Annex 2: Other Ideas considered

The Commission focused on working methods (or their innovative combinations) which clearly offer something new in comparison to what already exists. This is implied in the terms of reference. The Commission heard many additional reasons that the HIGJ should not do what is already done:

 If the HIGJ directly competes with existing institutions, that would lead to many tensions inconsistent with the primary idea of cooperation is part of the mission;

 €17 million is little money for setting up a world class institute that competes with existing think tanks, universities, or executive education centres;

 This could be sufficient if the institute is very specialized (f.i. niche institute on compliance with human rights; resource conflicts; a global view on migration);

 But then the impact on the knowledge infrastructure would be limited, which is also not the idea;

 This would probably hold true regarding the impact on The Hague economy as well.

 The commission has not yet heard any clear and powerful ideas for such a niche institute (including a strategy and a business model) , nor heard suggestions about world class researchers who have the ambition to set up a niche institute, that would fit in The Hague;

During the International Stakeholder Workshop, the participants warned the HIGJ not to do consultancy as a core business.

 Risk of losing independent position quickly

 The trap of becoming too casuistic, having little time to integrate and reflect

 There is much competition on this market

 The HIGJ would risk being seen and becoming a competitor of Clingendael, HCCS, International Crisis Group

The option of a Global Justice Fund as a core business, offering a broad programme on which institutions could suggest proposals, tendering in a competition? There seems to be little support for this model.

 This would become a kind of mini NWO, or a competitor of funds such as USIP and many other funds

 Results can be expected to be scattered

 Impact on The Hague institutions and economy probably limited, depending on focus program.

 How could this become a sustainable model, after the initial funding?

Some ideas have been floated about making the HIGJ a think-tank. The project plan, with the idea of a representative building and researchers in such a building, may have contributed to this suggestion. The most concrete idea for a focus would be one on strategic studies, supporting diplomats and world leaders in the way they make use of international law, economic sanctions, conflict management at the international level and other influencing tools, including judicial diplomacy. Such a think-tank may have the following advantages and disadvantages.  Core competencies are present at Grotius Centre Leiden University, Clingendael, HCSS and other places. These activities could be stimulated and scaled up.  Much competition from foreign think-tanks.  Not an easy relationship between some of these institutes.  The working hypothesis would be that developing new concepts/ideas would be the key to breakthroughs in the problems the HIGJ wishes to address; is this likely to be true in a setting where information is already so widely shared (reinforced by the internet) and so many thinkers across the globe are already  Powerful concepts and ideas, if they are truly new, can certainly move and motivate people;  Only indirect links to justice.  Only indirect links to development, economics, and the courts in The Hague.  Funding model would have to be developed; ideas are not so easy to sell; so some form of consultancy or other activities will have to be developed.

58

The following focus areas have been suggested, but have not (yet) been explored extensively, because they seemed to receive less support during the workshop than others. Elements of these proposals can easily be integrated into the four main focal areas, however.

 Sustainable migration: a framework ‒ Based on global vision integrating security, economic and development interests; taking into account local differences, values ‒ Alternative Title: From „national security‟ to „human security‟: Protecting vulnerable groups and populations. This is a broader framing than „sustainable migration‟.

 Best mechanisms for sharing natural resources ‒ Procedures, fair sharing rules; for minerals, water, land etc.; justice based, realistic, incentive-proof, stress-resistant etc.

A number of other issues were proposed in written comments:

Disarmament issues

 The topic did not show up during the workshops, but was mentioned by the professors in public international law

 Although this is a very relevant topic for worldwide peace, and The Hague played a role here around 1900. It is probably nota an issue on which The Hague and its surrounding research institutions have a comparative advantage.

Humanitarian law

 Several comments were received suggesting that Geneva has a comparative advantage here, although the topic certainly has historical roots in The Hague‟s peace conferences of 1899 and 1907.

Regional organizations such as the EU, but in a more broad sense also the Soviet Union and China (and possibly the US).

 Clearly, these organizations are very relevant for worldwide governance

 The comparative advantage of The Hague is less clear in this respect, as is the direct link with conflict mechanisms, although taken in a very broad sense, they certainly help to resolve conflicts

 These topics are very broad, because these organizations have a broad impact

 This may be an example of a topic that can come on the agenda during later years

G7, G20 and similar governance mechanisms

 Similar reasoning as for regional organizations

A general approach to nation building

 This is a very broad topic, involving many different disciplines, on which many centres across the world are active.

 The comparative advantage of The Hague is less clear.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 59

A note on headings: There are numerous ways in which the 93 research results and knowledge gaps identified in the course of the International Stakeholder Workshop can be organised. This entails that there are many headings that can be crystallized from the fact-finding exercise that would satisfy, to a greater or lesser degree, all of the criteria indicated earlier. Much work on the wording of the headings has to be done, taking into consideration.

 The exact focus and language will largely depend on the perspective adopted in relation to the „overarching thing‟ and the nature of the HIGJ method.

 The importance of the programme headlines as a „business card‟ of the Institute

 The headings should suggest concrete results.

 The heading should suggest a partnership, or the method of forming partnerships in order to tackle major challenges.

 Headings should be such that a group of stakeholders at the demand side can identify with them.

 Key words in the substantive headlines must be such as to reflect the strong association of the HIGJ with what it does and how it does it in the eyes of the international research and practitioners‟ community as well as possible partners and donors.

 At minimum, the programme headlines must embody an ideal balance between being overly abstract and being too narrow as to exclude adjacent topics that are clearly relevant to the HIGJ mission; they ought also to hint to the promise of innovation in the relevant domain that the Institute commits to deliver.

 Headings should be tied to the strengths and tradition of The Hague and responses to global justice challenges (adjudication/prevention; regulation; dispute settlement/ conflict resolution; protection, methods).

 The themes must be broad enough to provide an umbrella for the existing results and the 3D vision (see HIGJ background note) and are not in any way meant to be exhaustive or exclusive.

60

Annex 3 | Comments received and processed

The following comments were received in writing and/or through interviews. The summaries are ours, but have been checked with all participants whose comments we received directly. These comments were systematically used to improve the text and can be traced in the final version of the document. However, some suggestions for other substantive topics were not followed or marked for a later stage, see Annex 2 for the reasons for this.

ACIL (Amsterdam Centre for International Law):

 Going beyond classic research format and on new forms of cooperation such as partnerships is interesting and appreciated.

 Open process has danger of collecting too many ideas, often incompatible

 Prioritization is of the essence; use substantive criteria for this: strengths and needs of The Hague legal capital, of scholarship in the Netherlands and on assessment of state of the art

 Public international law and international criminal law should be at the centre, and there are fundamental questions here that should be researched;

 Topics Courts for 2020 and Rule of Law best fit the HIGJ;

 Topics should have a credible case for innovation;

Rob Widdershoven after consultation within Utrecht Law School:

 Central idea ... justice is done, seen to be done, felt to be done is OK (but broad);

 Stimulating interdisciplinary, large scale research partnerships and dissemination should be key; use money as seed money to stimulate partnerships;

 Be cautious to compete with existing institutions on education and training.

 Focus Area: Interactive Models for Court Development, oriented towards increasing the interaction between courts and the target community; concrete proposal

 Make Corporate Social Responsibility a Focus Area.

Peter van Tuijl (Executive Director ECCP / GPPAC Global Secretariat):

 The uniqueness in the fundamental features of the HIGJ should be ´The Hague´, a particular way in which different stakeholders engage with each other, which - underscored by a historical track record - has proven to be particularly suitable for accommodating sharing, learning and settlement of peace & justice related issues from different context.

 Our method is The Hague, where government, local government, academia, think tanks, civil society and even the corporate sector find ways to effectively engage, collaborate and be productive. One can belittle this as a rationalization of the Dutch polder model, but I do not see it as such. I am convinced that we together really have something to sell to the world. It is not a coincidence that already important relevant institutions have come to The Hague.

 Frame research agenda in an idea of incremental progression of justice. I found this attractive and convincing in Amartya Sen´s latest book.

 Framing global justice as a by definition contested issue, also allows for a self-evident link to peacebuilding. The dilemma of peace versus justice is truly paramount in the work of our network partners on the ground.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 61

Ko Colijn (Clingendael/Eur):

 Document is getting better, but focal points still not concrete enough.

 Possible cause is tendency to live up to too many expectations: ‒ comprehensiveness, interdisciplinarity, integration; ‒ wish to let HIGJ be a leading partner from the beginning; ‒ no competition with existing institutions and involving them at the same time; ‒ serve many wishes of stakeholders and at the demand side ‒ wanting to find quick wins as well as lasting results at Olympic level ‒ global justice is problematic, multilayered concept, especially now ‒ choices have to be made, climbing the Olympus does not begin at the top, but at modest altitude

 Grid of 3X3 could give structure to the 93 proposals (see below), although not all cells of this matrix are HIGJ ripe at the moment.

Security Justice Socio-economic development

Governance

Values/ideas

Driving forces

 Too much focus on justice, dispute settlement, too little on security

 Between prevention and dispute settlement is an important phase of conflict management (containment of interventions, controlling conflicts, stabilization); for conflicts that cannot yet been settled;

 3D approach and smart sanctions could be part of this approach.

Jaap de Zwaan (director Clingendael):

 Work on accessibility of the document

 Make focal points more clear

 Limit the number of topics

 Make conflict mechanisms the central issue

 The new mechanisms for global governance (G7, G20 etc.) could be an important point of focus

Five professors of International Criminal Law (G. Sluiter, H. van der Wilt, E. van Sliedregt, H. Olasolo, C. Stahn):

 Study tensions (as well as complementarities) between justice and peace, social and economic development and governance.

 Even if building a unique consensual vision of global justice appears impossible, the process in itself is valuable as it can expose the fullest specter of visions and hint to possible ways of reconciling some of them.

 The HIGJ vision underlines the importance of bridging gaps between disciplines, academia and practices and fragmented cultural, geopolitical approaches to justice. Without adequate attention paid to methodology, no research programme or activity of the HIGJ would be sufficiently representative of the palette of views; the numerous connecting „bridges‟ the HIGJ is expected to walk back and forth on a daily basis cannot be built let alone crossed.

62

 The Hague and its surroundings constitute a center of gravity in international justice and arbitration (ICJ, ICTY, ICC, Permanent Court of Arbitration). In their decision-making, these formal mechanisms of adjudication and dispute settlement often operate on the basis of normative assumptions and thus render „intuitive‟ rather than „evidence-based‟ justice. They may be interested in new methodologies and ways to combine them with those already in use the limitations of which are well-known. The HIGJ‟s products in the present focal area would be in great demand.

 Combining and integrating methodologies which could allow enhancing the Global Justice beyond a sterile and abstract concept based on intuition rather than evidence provides an unequivocal promise of innovation in many adjacent disciplines and approaches. Currently, these are disconnected and have no platform for effective and genuine interaction on an equal footing, whereas research projects that are being executed in the methodology traditional to the respective discipline would in the absolute majority of cases benefit from broadening methodological horizons

 World-wide and on all levels of social ordering, the forms of justice have to work in difficult settings, under great pressures from many quarters representing special interests. Maintaining neutrality and independence is a global challenge.

 The International Court of Justice, now almost 100 years located in the Peace Palace, has not proven to be the primary dispute mechanism for states that it once promised to be. Nor have the international criminal courts proven to be a universal remedy. The diversity of, complementarity and conflict between the existing forms of justice generates a problem of choice and fragmentation of decision-making. There is a global problem of legitimacy of courts as the predominant forms of delivering justice, against the backdrop of (perceivably) more legitimate (effective, cheap, responsive) solutions.

 The future of international criminal justice lies with national criminal justice models and there is a need to equip domestic adjudicators with the necessary knowledge and insights into the specific normative framework of international criminal law, particularly with regard to crime definitions and liability theories.

 Many suggestions for results and partnerships as to Focal Point 1 and 3.

Nine professors of International Law (A. Nollkaemper, W.J. van Genugten, N.J. Schrijver, A.H.A.Soons, M.M.T. Brus, K. Wellen, R.A.Wessel, E. Hey, M. Kamminga, W. Werner) commenting on an earlier draft:

 More attention should be given to the following disciplines that are so successful in and around The Hague: ‒ International public law ‒ International criminal and humanitarian law ‒ Conflict resolution in the broadest sense ‒ Disarmament issues ‒ Private international law

Judge San-Hyun Song (President International Criminal Court):

 Another BIG idea..? Hard to come up with overall comments.

 One area of specific interest: Under 2nd focus area, Rule of Law and Weak States: make ICC complementarity more explicit, and link it to transitional justice and to law and development.

 Reference to complementarity resolution of the Kampala review conference. See http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.1-ENG.pdf

 Huge challenge of building local justice systems. Critical for ICC and States Parties.

 Need to bring international justice expertise and rule of law development people together. That is something that he is trying to do. An important player here: ICTJ http://www.ictj.org/en/index.html.

 President will give an important speech on this question at an ICTJ workshop in NY, end of this month.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 63

Prof. Thanh-Dam Truong, Institute for Social Studies (after consultation with professors Des Gasper, Karin Arts, Mansoob Murshed and Dr Jeff Handmaker).

 Make more attempts to define the different facets of global justice as mentioned in the box on page 13, in particular with identifiable perspectives such as: ‒ the judicial perspective (with its different levels and dealing with restorative and retributive issues) ‒ the global political economy approach, stressing distributive aspects (needs, equity, equality) and representation, voice, participation, interpersonal justice (respect) ‒ the transformative approach in transitional justice, emphasizing informational justice (transparency) ‒ political philosophy work by Pogge, Follesdahl and others holding that the globe should be seen as an arena for justice, not an arena where each agent is justified to seek only its own interest ‒ rules and (judicial) institutions should be assessed normatively, through the lense of justice (perspectives)

 The term fact-based justice should be reconsidered, and the title of focus area 1 should reflect interdisciplinary cooperation and diversity of perspectives.

 The (implicit) assumption that international law and national law will merge somehow in focus area 2 should be reconsidered. The tensions between these orders are relevant. Regional institutions, from EU to Soviet Union and China are relevant objects of study and realities as well. Political economy, international relations and identity construction in conflict situations are important topics.

 ISS can be considered a hot spot of knowledge in the area of global (social) justice and development, with many programs mentioned as examples, mostly driven by a concern for injustice and human suffering as a consequence of armed conflict, poverty, hunger, oppression and marginalization based on identity.

 For focus area 3, the heading could read Accountability and compliance: implementing regulatory systems, monitoring impact and enhancing effectiveness in human rights protection”

 The concept of Evidence Based Best Practices should be discussed more thoroughly, because it is also a value bearer, and begs questions such as “Best for whom?” “Best from which perspective?”

 For focus Area 5, the concept of Legal Empowerment of the Poor should be more central, because it also adheres to Albright‟s position that it integrates development, security and justice.

 Conflict mechanism should include prevention, mediation and mitigation. Understanding the manifestations of conflict and injustice can help find the means to redress immediate shortcomings, as well as to explore how these sufferings might be prevented through public reasoning on social justice and policy choices"

 Safe haven etc. suggestion: open space, safe haven, self-reflexive, pluralistic platform for tolerance and dialogue, attentive listening and mutual learning”

 Examples from health care and agriculture which have applied the interdisciplinary approach are valuable to draw lessons on how to address problems with many interfaces.

Tisco (Tilburg University) director Corry van Zeeland and researchers Gijs van Dijck and Machteld de Hoon.

 Impressive approach. Interesting, appealing ideas, in particular in the Parts about global justice and about partnerships.

 Many building blocks, more facts would help.

 The different roles the HIGJ may wish to play require more thought (research, or also evaluator, watch dog, justice provider etc.).

 This may have to come from the narrative and the mission, that could be brought more to the front. The summary is not yet very clear. The accessibility of the document can be improved.

 Methods paragraph in summary should be made more clear.

 Focal points are strong and convincing.

 In the conclusion, it should be made clear what the HIGJ adds to what is there already. Reality check earlier in the document, not as a SWOT analysis in the conclusions.

 More analysis of the demand (and of the worldwide competition) would help.

 'Fact-based' justice is not understandable, why not stick to evidence-based justice?

64

 How to guarantee that all "perspectives on justice” become part of the analysis “in a non-judgemental way"

 The approach is to go for solutions, whilst we are only beginning to understand how conflict resolution mechanisms work.

 Some concepts, such as procedural justice, have been tested in western societies, but hardly in developing countries.

 Adjudication and rule making should be presented as a mutually reinforcing learning loop, not as a dichotomy.

 The part about the methods of reflection and interaction for justice, which are typical for The Hague, and can be reinforced, is one of the stronger parts of the report.

 Partnerships are certainly the way forward, but there are many “how to” questions here, and also about the precise role of the HIGJ in these partnerships, as well as the funding.

 From the perspective of research groups such as Tisco, it is important that in partnerships they can work under their own name, as well as under the name of the HIGJ. Long term partnerships are much more attractive then ad hoc partnerships.

 It is time consuming and hard work to build partnerships with “intimate strangers”. So begin now with designing partnerships that have to deliver in 1 and 3 years. Be realistic in assessing money issues and deal with them early in the process: it is the first thing that people will look at.

Annemiek Richters (Leiden university, writtten in the field in Rwanda)

 Possible impact on people‟s lives add after “… happiness, welfare”: reconciliation and healing

 From my professional perspective: the anthropological/ethnographic approach could be mentioned more frequently end/or more explicitly, since this approach is most appropriate for the study of the relevance of „global justice‟ to people‟s real lives, the study of what local realities are, and the study of whether justice is felt to be done and seen to be done by the people concerned.

 I hope that Annex four will be included in the document even though its anonymous author suggests not to include his/her „voice from the heart‟. The voice underlines that „law‟ is not always the best road to take towards „safety/security and social and economic development‟ and courts are not always the hallmarks of justice (cf. p. 30). The author compares Vietnam and Cambodia. I am more familiar with the comparison of Mozambique and Rwanda. While in post-war Mozambique in the country-side one has developed indigenous ways of addressing injustices, in post-war/genocide Rwanda one had a modernized form of community justice that had so many flaws that for many people it increased insecurity and unsafety instead of contributing to security and safety and in that sense may not have contributed much to the breaking of the cycle of violence and sustainable peace.

 Research has shown that people who are psychologically traumatized are less inclined to believe in justice and reconciliation and therefore less likely to participate (for instance, testify) in practices of justice. Based on research, the statement can be defended that everyone working in the field of justice in post-conflict situations needs knowledge about traumatization and its effect on testifying, the silencing within testimonies, the influence of traumatic memories on testifying, and the retraumatization caused by testifying.

 The document does rightly stress the relevance of attention for community-based approaches to justice and peace and approaches „from below‟.

 Throughout the document the concept of „conflict mechanisms‟ is used. Shouldn‟t that concept be replaced by „conflict resolution mechanisms‟?

 The content of paragraph 13 is not clear. Do people in venues for international negotiations know best what works on the level of communities? Isn‟t is so that solutions designed by local actors should inform the production of global justice knowledge? Or is the presupposition that there is some sort of universal global justice knowledge that should inform the search for solutions on community level?

 Growing justice bottom-up: models for institutions: Does it mean the possible scaling up (the institutionalizing) of justice mechanisms that appear to be effective on local levels?

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 65

Steven van Hoogstraten (Director Carnegie Foundation)

 HIGJ should concentrate on pragmatic, applied research, based on experience in the field, and not on fundamental research

 Should address dilemmas on the interfaces of peace and law/justice, security and development, law/justice and governance

 Initial list of topics was too much concentrated on courts

 Points of attention could be: ‒ Judicial independence as an element of global justice ‒ Stability of the rule of law in countries without a democratic tradition ‒ New methods of conflict resolution (developing a Hague method?) ‒ Self regulation by business and enforcement of these promises ‒ The significance of transitional justice in countries in post conflict situations ‒ Finding methods to fight corruption (conflicts between ethics and development) ‒ The competition for scarce resources and its international regulation

Marie José Alting von Geusau (Director Center for International Legal Cooperation):

 CILC subscribes the mission statement and ToR and the importance of working in partnerships.

 CILC would prefer guidance on distinctiveness – on focus on an Institute with broadly recognized added value in placing global justice in the center of security, peace and development.

 Work towards matches with maximum impact, and thus best products – and becoming a trendsetter because the HIGJ has created successful and probably innovative matches.

 The necessity of quick wins is crucial; CILC experiences it in all its projects.

 The itinerary working method in assembling the building blocks for the HIGJ is quite exemplary. CILC thinks it‟s important to stick to this working method and to integrate it in the working procedure of the HIGJ as much as possible. It will enrich the contents and hopefully preserve the multi/interdisciplinary approach the HIGJ intends to follow.

 A roadmap in which this process of involving partners at the right time both on organization and product level would be useful in this respect.

 An in-depth study of trends, or a marketing research, seems necessary anyhow; it could also be used as an instrument to better connect with global institutes on other issues; and could be used as one of the „quick wins‟. This should be focused in order to better connect to the „reason of existence‟ of the HIGJ and its added value to international development and . connect to the now selected five focus areas.

 The possible central idea CILC supports – but it should not be limited to bringing it to a global level, but, enriched and innovated, it should be re implemented on the national/local level.

 CILC wonders whether the method of building partnerships guarantees sufficient level playing field; connecting theory and practice is a sometimes quite uncompromising „battlefield‟ and needs additional bridges and translation instruments in order to bring worlds together.

 Besides the eight principles listed in the document, partnerships are also a matter of precise communication, time, and responsibility.

 Modesty as an asset, or international experience and knowledge which results in open mindedness?

 It would be a good idea to check these focus areas with an outer circle of partner organizations in both research and practice in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America

66

Lokke Moerel (partner De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek ICT and law):

 Well done, a comprehensive and inspiring programme that for sure will put the institute on the map!

 More technology creates also more security threats (computer networks can be hacked and completely taken out, etc. Privacy invasive techniques are used to enhance security (fingerprints in passports), fingerprint or iris recognition for access control. The other way around, privacy enhancing techniques present security treats (facilitate anonymous use of inernet which facilitates terrorism).

 In para 30 you refer to universal norms, and tension with local application. In many areas it is still the other way around, there is tension between the jurisdictional approach of states and the inherent transnational activities of many private actors due to the digital age. This transnational behavior requires more transnational norms or best practices.

 Due to the internet also the location of dispute settlement is no longer relevant (which creates opportunities for the institute). Dispute settlement may be organised not in the developed countries where legal infrastucture may not be available, but in country of origin (headquarters of multinational) or in the hague for all it matters. It may even be seen as moving the cost of the dispute settlement to the western world where also the profits are made (as a form of development aid. For instance in enforcement of CSR codes you could have an obligation of the multinational to be accountable before its own court for all violations worldwide and an obligation for all group companies to assist local people to file their claim with the local company which then should translate and put in right format for forum of multinational.

 Given all the fora we already have, it is better to think up new ways of using existing fora and rethinking jurisdiction (for instance making countries responsible for disputes of multinationals on their territory). Unless you have no multinationals at all, every country will take its share of central supervision. Leave it more open in the paper rather than suggesting solutions which the task of the institute is to research.

 The example on privacy does not fit in with the proposal. At the expert meeting it was vey clear to me from the human rights perspective, in the developing world there are more pressing human rights violations than privacy. People accessing data have to work in locked rooms without windows, are searched before they are allowed in the data rooms and have to hand in their mobile phones etc.

 For the focus areas, make more clear how they relate to each other.

 In all these focus areas it is assumed that examples of excellence first and foremost ensure fair process and outcome and that people first wish to come to a fair and just outcome. That is typically a legalistic view of conflict solution. There is empirical evidence that in many cases the relevant actors do not value a fair outcome and fair procedure above all other elements. Especially in long term relationships (like between investor an local community) where regular conflicts are inherent to the relation, for instance a long conflict even if decided with a fair process and with a fair outcome may be more detrimental to the relationship than a speedy outcome even if less fair in the individual case (better to get decision and move on than a fair outcome).

 For instance a multinational may prefer to pay a certain predictable compensation via an alternative procedure which is quick and makes it possible to have good local relations than a fair procedure and fair outcome. It might well be that there are alternatives which do not meet our due process standards, but are a justice light model which are very adequate for certain situations.

 It would be refreshing if the institute could come up and research a number of justice light alternatives with empirical evidence that these surprisingly also work to the satisfaction of the parties involved.

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 67

Annex 4 | Great gifts received during the process that made us silent

If you want to focus on doing the right thing in a relationship, you recognize the dignity and the humanity in the person you are trying to enter a relationship with. Then the concept of power falls apart (Austin Onuoha)

My comments here are based on my personal experience, so they do not have to occupy a place in your document, just a voice from the heart about how I see justice (based on my personal journey). 1. Justice is as much about caring and healing as it is about punishing wrong doings so they will not be repeated. Cambodia has a court to judge the culprits of the 'killing fields'. Vietnam never had one, why? those killed silently in re-education camps or drown in the sea during that is known as 'the Indochina refugee crisis' will never see justice, but their families will have to accept these act as 'own accounts'. The success of the transformation of Vietnam from a war-torn country within one generation to one of the most dynamic country in the region was due to many aspects of healing, silently among people and communities, solidarity and mutual support that will not be recorded. 2. What do I feel? I want to heal relations for a better future of the next generation...Germany and the rest of Europe have been able to heal the wounds of WWII. why and how: by reflexive thinking, building confidence in the next generations. Should this not be fostered? 3. Where I come from going to court to claim justice manifest one's own failure in dealing with social relations and pass the buck on to the lawyers. I know that this position is very weak when it comes to massive destruction and waves of aggression. but still, I believe that practices of healing step by step helps, healing by recognizing the aggressor inside oneself, and forgiving the aggressor outside. In other words: recognizing that none is perfect, and work on protecting human dignity as the basis to reduce conflict (Thanh-Dam Truong).

68

Annex 5 | Thank you ... for ...

All participants in the international stakeholder workshop, for their cooperative and enthusiastic attitude, for their hard work on suitable focus areas, for the results and knowledge gaps they identified and for the guidance they provided, each individually in their comments, but also by showing us where the major stakeholders jointly see the added value of the HIGJ.

All contributors with comments in writing mentioned in Annex 3.

And very special thanks to:

Sergey Vasiliev (University of Amsterdam) for valuable research assistance and organizing a workshop for professors in international criminal law

Ed Maan (The Hague Academic Coalition) for practical assistance and for his passion about people feeling transformed by The Hague‟s experience of a safe, reflexive space where all questions can be asked and for sharing an important sports metaphor regarding achieving excellence

Karen Russel (The Hague Academic Coalition) for sorting out mailing lists and attendants and much organizing work

Thanh-Dam Truong (ISS) for keeping us focused on the layers of social life and diversity

Godelieve van Heteren (Global Health Initiative) for inviting us to focus on the essence, to explore broadly and then to deflate

Karen van Stegeren (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) for “interfacing” with the Steering Group and for inspiring us with a “thing” ( …. is done, felt to be done, seen to be done; in all layers of social life, and across the globe) and suggesting to start with bringing in real people, listening to their views on justice

Jozias van Aartsen (Mayor The Hague) for the high aspirations that make it possible for stakeholders to think and act out of the box (and the limits of their own organizations)

Annet Bertram (Secretary-general The Hague) for careful and consistent procedures making the HIGJ possible at all

Carsten Stahn (Grotius Centre) for setting the spotlight on constructive conflict and dispute mechanisms in a broad sense

Ko Colijn (Clingendael/EUR) for his thoughts on connecting security, development and justice, for suggesting there are no unknown unknowns, but shifting frontiers, and formulating the need for very good research brokers

Organizers (World Legal Forum and “Ruggie team”) and participants in an international expert workshop on Corporate Social Responsibility for sharing their views on what is Focus Area 4 in this report

Monica Maassen (Oxfam Novib) for explaining the essence of partnerships

Sadik Harchaoui (Forum, Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling) for sharing his views on global and local justice issues

The Hague Institute for Global Justice 69

Peter Jurgens (former Boer & Croon) for coaching on the process and a flawless example of how a partnership can be facilitated

Onno van Veldhuizen (Mayor Hoorn) for a great example of a consistent “city narrative”

Jaap Spier (Advocate General Supreme Court) for a critical and encouraging assessment of the focus areas and each of the results envisaged

Austin Onuoha (Executive Director, Africa Center for Corporate Responsibility) for his insights on key issues for mechanisms regarding conflicts in Nigeria and his impressions on what The Hague stands for

Frans Nelissen (Director Asser Instituut) for organizing feed-back from the experts in international law and sharing his views on what partnerships can mean for members of the Hague Academic Coalition

Jaap de Zwaan (Director Clingendael) for sharing views on focus area 2 and on the overall role of reconciliation processes

Participating organizations in a partnership regarding legal empowerment/microjustice (DAS Rechtsbijstand, Oxfam Novib, Nijenrode University, Tilburg University) for showing us the type of results partnerships between practice and research in focus area 5 can aim for

Elsje Jorritsma (NRC-Next) for giving feed-back on the draft narrative

Andrea Lollini (University of Bologna), for his multidisciplinary comments

Jan Eijsbouts (Former general counsel AKZO Nobel; Professor of CSR, University of Maastricht), for scanning the document in one of his busiest weeks and being very enthusiastic

Erik van den Emster (Chair Council for the Judiciary) for sharing his views on the potential of the HIGJ for courts (focus area 3)

Jaap Winter (De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek/University of Amsterdam) for sharing views on interfaces between The Hague‟s global justice and Amsterdam‟s corporate governance/financial law

André Nollkaemper (ACIL, University of Amsterdam) for an exchange of views on justice in international relationships and on the newest research on sharing responsibilities

Geert Corstens (President Supreme Court) for sharing his views on issues that are relevant for highest courts (focus area 3)

Judge San-Hyun Song of the ICC and his adviser on external relations, Mattias Helman, for taking the time to reflect on our draft and sharing ideas which directly relate to the challenges of the Court

Peter van den Biggelaar (Director Legal Aid Board) for sharing views on the climate for justice partnerships in other European countries

70

Annex 6 | Consultation List

Nr First name Last name Institute / Position / Expertise

1 Jozias Aartsen Mayor The Hague

2 Barney Afako Judge

3 Arno Akkermans VU University Amsterdam

4 Marie José Alting von Geusau Centre for International Legal Cooperation

5 Paul Arlman Dutch Chapter Transparency International

6 Karin Arts International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

7 Ron Asmus Transatlantic Center

8 Nicholas Awortwi International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

9 Maurits Barendrecht Tilburg University

10 Adriaan Bedner Leiden University, Van Vollenhoven Instituut

11 Ernst Bemmelen van Gent The Hague University of Applied Sciences

12 Dick Benschop Shell

13 Annet Bertram Secretary-General The Hague

14 Hans Bevers International Criminal Court

15 Kees Biekart International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

16 Peter Biggelaar Legal Aid Board

17 Steven Blockmans T.M.C. Asser Instituut

18 Peter Bossche Maastricht University, WTO Panel

19 Astrid Bronswijk Municipality of The Hague

20 Koos Bruggen Delft University of Technology/Leiden University - Campus The Hague

21 Marcel Brus University of Groningen

22 Francisco Cabrillo Rodriguez Universidad Complutense de Madrid

23 Catherine Cissé van den Muijsenberg Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation

24 Monica Claes Maastricht University

25 Ko Colijn Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael

26 Geert Corstens President Supreme Court of The Netherlands

27 Koen Davidse Ministry of Foreign Affairs

28 Maria Derks Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael

29 Gijs Dijck Tilburg University

30 Sander Dikker Hupkes Leiden University - Campus The Hague / Grotius Centre

31 Quirine Eijkman Centre for Terrorism and Counterterrorism (CTC), Leiden University - Campus the Hague

32 Jan Eijsbouts Former AKZO Nobel, University of Maastricht

33 Erik Emster Council for the Judiciary

34 Steven Everts European Commission

35 Mark Freeman International Crisis Group

36 Des Gasper International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

37 Willem Genugten Tilburg University

38 Aart-Jan Geus OECD

39 Sjoerd Gosses Centre for International Legal Cooperation

40 Chris Goto Jones Leiden University College

41 Vincent Graaf Senior Legal Adviser, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities

42 Meghna Guhathakurta Research Initiatives, Bangladesh

43 Joyeeta Gupta Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam

44 Leo Haan International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

45 Rob Hamerslag Hamerslag & van Haren advocaten

46 Jeff Handmaker International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

47 Sadik Harchaoui Forum, Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling

48 Roelof Haveman International Development Law Organization (IDLO)

The Hague Institute for Global Justice Annex 6 | Consultation List

Nr First name Last name Institute / Position / Expertise

49 Mattias Helman International Criminal Court

50 Larissa Herik Leiden University

51 Godelieve Heteren WEMOS Foundation, Global Health Initiative Rotterdam

52 Renate Heuseveldt Municipality of The Hague, Advisor of the Mayor

53 Ellen Hey Erasmus University Rotterdam

54 Thea Hilhorst Wageningen University & Research centre

55 Ton Hol Utrecht University

56 Steven Hoogstraten Carnegie Foundation, The Hague Academy of International Law

57 Machteld Hoon Tilburg University

58 Jaap Hoop Scheffer Leiden University - Campus The Hague / Grotius Centre

59 Jeroen Hoven Delft University of Technology

60 Peter Huisman Oxfam Novib

61 John Hulsman The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies

62 Harry Hummel Netherlands Helsinki Committee

63 Rosa Jansen SSR

64 Elsje Jorritsma NRC-Next

65 Peter Jurgens Former Boer & Croon

66 Sanne Kamerling Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael

67 Menno Kamminga University of Groningen, Maastricht University

68 Warner Kate Former MONUC and OCHA in Sudan and Uganda

69 Sara Kendall Leiden University - Campus The Hague / Grotius Centre

70 Eelco Kessels International Centre for Counter-Terrorism - The Hague

71 Guusje Korthals Altes Ministry of Foreign Affairs

72 Tineke Lambooy Tilburg University

73 Andrea Lollini University of Bologna

74 Ed Maan The Hague Academic Coalition

75 Monica Maassen Oxfam Novib

76 Andrea Marrone International Criminal Court

77 Christa Meindersma The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies

78 Susana Menéndez The Hague University of Applied Sciences

79 Lokke Moerel De Brauw Blackstone en Westbroek

80 Chris Moll European Academy for Law and Legislation

81 Sam Muller Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law

82 Mansoob Murshed International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

83 Frans Nelissen T.M.C. Asser Instituut

84 Suzan Nollen Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael

85 Andre Nollkaemper University of Amsterdam

86 Sarah Nouwen University of Cambridge

87 Ann O'Brien T.M.C. Asser Instituut

88 Austin Onuoha Africa Center for Corporate Responsibility

89 Barbara Oomen Roosevelt Academy

90 Joke Oranje Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation

91 Stephan Parmentier University of Leuven

92 Christophe Paulussen Tilburg University

93 Jon Pierre Götenborg University

94 Ritsart Anne Plantenga The Hague University of Applied Sciences

95 Christian Rebergen Ministry of Foreign Affairs

96 Olivier Ribbelink T.M.C. Asser Instituut

97 Annemiek Richters Leiden University

98 Ken Roberts International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

The Hague Institute for Global Justice Annex 6 | Consultation List

Nr First name Last name Institute / Position / Expertise

99 Rob Rooij Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law

100 Rebecca Sandefur Stanford University

101 Michiel Scheltema Utrecht University, Chairman Programmatic Steering Board, HiiL

102 Nico Schrijver Leiden University

103 Jan Geert Siccama Ministry of Defence

104 Shilan Sinjari Ministry of Foreign Affairs

105 Elies Sliedregt VU University Amsterdam

106 Goran Sluiter University of Amsterdam

107 Sang-Hyun Song President International Criminal Court

108 Fred Soons Utrecht University

109 Jaap Spier Supreme Court

110 Carsten Stahn Leiden University - Campus The Hague / Grotius Centre, New York University

111 Gerard Steeghs Ministry of Foreign Affairs

112 Karen Stegeren Ministry of Foreign Affairs

113 Alan Stephens Clemens Nathan Research Centre

114 Frederike Stikkelbroeck Hague Conference on Private International Law

115 Max Stoel Former Minister of Foreign Affairs

116 Olivia Swaak-Goldman International Criminal Court

117 Marco Swart Oxfam Novib

118 Mia Swart Leiden University - Campus The Hague / Grotius Centre

119 Jan Terstegen Ministry of Justice

120 Carel Tielenburg The Hague University of Applied Sciences

121 Johan Toit International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

122 Lars Troost Amnesty International, Dutch section

123 Thanh-Dam Truong International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

124 Peter Tuijl European Centre for Conflict Prevention, ECCP

125 Sergey Vasiliev University of Amsterdam

126 Rolando Vázquez Roosevelt Academy

127 Roel Veen Ministry of Foreign Affairs

128 Wouter Veening Institute for Environmental Security

129 Onno Veldhuizen Mayor Hoorn

130 Christian Vos Leiden University - Campus The Hague / Grotius Centre

131 Jouke Vries Leiden University - Campus The Hague / Grotius Centre

132 Karel Wellens Radboud University Nijmegen

133 Evelien Weller The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies

134 Wouter Werner VU University Amsterdam

135 Ramses Wessel University of Twente

136 Hans Wesseling Ministry of Foreign Affairs

137 Rob Widdershoven Utrecht University

138 Jaap Winter De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, University of Amsterdam

139 Michael Woolcock The University of Manchester

140 William Worster The Hague University of Applied Sciences

141 Jan Wouters University of Leuven

142 David Wubs International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam

143 Corry Zeeland Tilburg University

144 Stavros Zouridis Former Ministry of Justice

145 Jaap Zwaan Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael

The Hague Institute for Global Justice