Impact case study database

Jones and Nah’s research has improved the safety, security and well-being of HRDs at risk across the globe. It has altered the very premises on which HRD protection is approached. As the Fund for Global Human Rights has observed, their work: “ has shaped policy and processes at national and international level [through] its concept and critique of an ecosystem of security and protection mechanisms, actors and practices in which - at that time - an orthodoxy had settled that centred largely around the figure of the individual HRD. Their research highlighted the gaps and shortcomings of this approach, and posed an important challenge to the sector and states to address those gaps developing more collaborative protection approaches. Collective protection has since become a major focus for organisations supporting HRDs and is being developed and expanded as a critical part of the security and protection ecosystem, and has resulted in adaptations in protection mechanisms that now provide support for HRDs families, associates and communities.” [9f]

These effects are evident in three major ways.

1. Shaping the global agenda on HRDs at risk through close collaboration with the UNSR

Jones’ and Nah’s research underpinned six reports by the UNSR on good practices in the protection of HRDs [3a-3f]. As the UNSR explains, these reports “ prompted significant, far-reaching discussions within the United Nations system on these topics, not just in these forums but also in high-level inter-State dialogues” [8]. They “have also been part of a larger conversation with regional organisations, national human rights institutions, State authorities, civil society, and the public at large around the important task of recognising and protecting human rights defenders” [1][8].

Jones and Nah provided the UNSR with critical research support and management in the preparation of the 2018 ‘World Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders’ (A/73/215). The World Report subsequently became “one of the main tools for HRDs at a national level in repealing repressive laws, and in introducing protective and positive laws for HRDs” [9c]. Jones and Nah’s research ensured that the reports produced by the UNSR accurately reflected the realities and needs of HRDs from across the world. The UNSR has said that their research was “consistently the key reference point for my reports. It was authoritative, expert research that spoke directly to the challenges I faced in my mandate” [8]. Jones and Nah’s research, and their collaboration with the UNSR, facilitated a “deeper and more nuanced understanding among UN officials, member states and practitioners of the situation and needs of HRDs in different contexts. This has enabled states and non-state actors to reflect Jones and Nah’s insights and adapt their approaches around this growing body of knowledge that derives first-hand from their research” [9f].

The reports produced by the UNSR are hugely influential amongst human rights practitioners. For example, ‘the Special Rapporteur’s reports have helped [international CSO] Global Witness to shape its advocacy asks and to demonstrate that these asks are not just based upon our, or defenders’ opinions, but on international expertise and guidance. Through our campaigning, we have encouraged a number of State and corporate entities to take a range of actions and introduce a range of policy developments. On each occasion, we have cited the Rapporteur. Advocacy targets have included: the Honduran government, the Brazilian Government, the Philippines Government, the UK government, the Canadian government, and the US government, as well as the Dutch Development Bank, the IFC, the World Bank, Del Monte Philippines, and Finnfund” [9a].

Jones’ and Nah’s research via the UNSR’s reports [3g] has also shaped the policy and practice of multinational corporations. For instance, as a direct result of their research, Adidas has issued a commitment to working with HRDs to change its practice and to petition on their behalf [4]. The guidance issued by the Business Network on Civic Freedoms on the challenges and opportunities to support civil society and HRDs was the first statement of its kind from a business group [5a]. The 2019 document ‘Troicare: making a killing’ uses Jones and Nah’s research as the foundation of their call for a legally binding global treaty to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with provisions to ensure the prevention of human rights violations, access to justice, the primacy of human rights trade, and investments agreements [5b].

1. Informing and underpinning the development of national approaches to the protection of HRDs

Jones and Nah’s research has been used to highlight security and protection challenges in a range of nations where HRDs work in high-risk environments [3]. From their research findings they devised seven key principles for effective HRD protection practices, which were published by the UNSR [3a]. These seven principles have become the basis for guidelines on national law, policy and practice on the protection of HRDs, such as International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)’s Model Law on the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights Defenders [2][9f]. That model law was endorsed by 28 of the world’s leading human rights experts and jurists [2]. It has since shaped the drafting of national laws in Cote d’Ivoire ( Loi 2014-388 portant promotion et protection des defenseurs des droits de l’Homme, implemented 22 February 2017) and Burkina Faso (Loi 039-2017/AN, Decret 2017-0681/PRES, portant protection des defenseurs des droits humains au Burkina Faso, 27 June 2017). Most recently, the Canadian prime minister has directed the Minister for Immigration to introduce a visa scheme to provide a safe haven for human rights advocates for which Jones and Nah’s research is ‘an important reference point’ [9f].

In 2019, the ISHR commissioned Nah to conduct a study on the desirability and feasibility of a global network of national human rights defenders focal points. The study was grounded in Jones and Nah’s research methods of extensive interviews with civil society, national human rights institutions and States, combined with desk research. The study promotes the identification of senior-level State officials responsible for promoting international cooperation and sharing lessons learned on the protection of HRDs through the network. The study recommends a series of initial steps including the constitution of a steering group, an advisory board and a secretariat. The ISHR are clear that ‘the global network will make a significant contribution to the implementation of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and their Protection and to the protection of Human Rights Defenders. The study has been and will continue to be critical to ISHR’s work in this regard.” [9h]

1. Developing knowledge, policies and practices of civil society organisations working with HRDs

Jones and Nah’s research has been instrumental in building civil society organisations’ (CSOs) understandings of the issues affecting HRDs, and has assisted in the development of guidelines and practical approaches that support defenders. By producing policy briefs in local languages, Jones and Nah have helped NGOs to understand and respond to the needs of minority linguistic, ethnic, and immigrant cultures and communities making their research “ frequently cited as essential references on HRDs for scholars and practitioners...The series of policy briefs on security and wellbeing - and the fact that they have been made available in several languages - has been of direct use to HRDs in multiple countries. I, like others I know who work with HRDs in many countries, shared them with a network of frontline activists for whom these are pertinent issues” [9f][10].

Their work has been very significant in relation to temporary international relocation initiatives (TIRIs) and the mental wellbeing of HRDs. Jones and Nah’s research has been “crucial for the development of more critical and strategic thinking on the protection of defenders...a thought-leader in the field of protection, that links practice and theory” [9g]. It has “ brought an empirical base on which practitioners have been able to layer their experience of running such schemes to critically reflect on how to expand them and find a better fit with asylum and refugee frameworks” [9f].

Jones’ and Nah’s scholarship on the psychological wellbeing of HRDs has directly changed the policies and procedures of CSOs. In 2019, Jones and Nah co-wrote The Barcelona Guidelines on Wellbeing and Temporary International Relocation of Human Rights Defenders to provide guidance to practitioners implementing TIRIs [6]. Defend Defenders have found the research and Guidelines “a great reference point for our well being and resilience programme for HRDs” [9d]. The Guidelines have been formally adopted and promoted by, International Cities of Refuge (ICORN) and Justice and Peace Netherlands (JPNL), in their 70 and 17 cities respectively [7]. ICORN states that the research ‘fundamentally changed the way we speak and think about these issues’ [9b]. Jones and Nah’s research “not only collected stories and personal practices that could inspire defenders and the sector of protection, but it has helped the donors to understand this burning need to support wellbeing work” [9b]. After engaging with the research, ICORN ‘made a policy decision that all those that come into one of our cities of refuge should be approached in a formal way to raise these issues of wellbeing...it is on the agenda at our national meetings...and we put it into the programme as mandatory [9b]. HRDs that have engaged with ICORN’s programme ‘have said very clearly that they’re calmer, they have less fear of the future, they are more able to make decisions...we see very clearly the impact on their wellbeing” [9b].

Jones and Nah’s work on wellbeing has also had a beneficial impact on those that support HRDs. Front Line Defenders have “integrated wellbeing and stress management in our protection training which is delivered in the countries where HRDs operate” [9e]. Front Line have 20 field-based workers across five world regions that are ‘very exposed to the potential of burn out because they have very strong relationships with HRDs [9e]. Forum Asia observes that human rights practitioners have “personally benefited from engaging with this work too ... I have been working in this field over [text removed for publication] years and I find it difficult. I see lots of my peers leaving the Human Rights movement and [Jones and Nah’s research] helped me think about local activism and how we can have a strong and resilient community that can have more young people to join this field” [9c].

O’Brien’s research has seen a broad range of impacts concerning the rights and welfare of EU nationals living in the UK. She employed a number of techniques to facilitate this impact: establishing herself as an authoritative voice in legal and policy debates; providing direct support to advisors working with EU nationals in entitlement disputes; sharing expertise and building capacity amongst a nationwide network of advisors; advocating directly with government agencies to change problematic administrative practices.

Shaping Legal & Policy Debates

O’Brien established herself as the leading expert on the meaning of equal treatment under EU Law for EU nationals who were resident in the UK [10e], particularly with regard to welfare benefits. She wrote articles in practitioner journals [5a-5g], gave research briefings to parliamentarians and civil servants [2a], gave presentations to groups of lawyers, judges, civil servants and NGOs, with outstanding feedback [9][10], and made media appearances [7]. Her scholarship won awards and was published in major legal journals (section 3). As a result, she became an authoritative and highly influential voice in legal and policy debates.

O’Brien advised welfare organisations in strategic litigation in the senior courts. For example, her academic output [D] was adopted by counsel in a UK Supreme Court case and cited in the subsequent judgment [1]. Advocate General Szpunar quoted and relied upon her academic output [C] in the Court of Justice of the European Union [3]. Her evidence to the London Assembly was quoted at length in the Assembly’s letter to the Mayor of London [6]. Her evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee for Exiting the EU (2017) was drawn upon heavily in the Committee’s report (eight references; 58 lines of text in total) [2b]. It was also cited by several MPs in the Commons Debate on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill [2c][2d]. Her written evidence to a later Select Committee inquiry (2018) was used explicitly to formulate a specific objection to government proposals regarding the rights of EU nationals post-Brexit. Drawing directly on O’Brien’s argument that vulnerable groups would fall through the gaps left open by government policy proposals, the Committee demanded that:

“the Government must ensure that there are specific provisions and flexibility for such people to ensure eligibility for Settled Status that will cover vulnerable children and adults, particularly women who have had caring responsibilities or have been temporarily unable to work because of domestic abuse.” [2e]

The Home Office reversed its policy ten weeks later. As the Assistant Counsel for the Justice Committee in the House of Commons noted:

“[O’Brien’s] evidence represented a compelling contribution to the arguments for changing government policy on citizens’ rights. I have no doubt that her arguments were extremely influential in setting the agenda for how the Government should approach policy in this area.” [10e]

At the supra-national level too, O’Brien’s work impacted on legal and policy debates. O’Brien was appointed as an analytical expert on the EU Commission’s Free Movement of Workers and Social Security Coordination Network (FreSsco), as a member of its successor expert network (MoveS), and co-authored three research reports [4a-4c]. Her FreSsco report on definitions of a worker under EU Law [4b] was, according to an EU Commission lawyer, considered both ‘influential’ and a ‘game-changer’ [10b], informing the work of the Commission when considering litigation to set standards and precedents that govern rights:

“[It] gave lawyers in the commission evidence and continues to give us a basis for discussion with member states, and amongst ourselves.” [10b]

Direct Assistance in the Resolution of Disputes Over Entitlements

The EU Rights Project, in its advocacy work, directly supported disputes that represented a recurrent problem encountered by legal advisors. From 2014-2017, 42 of the project’s 53 case studies involved direct legal action research work: advice, drafting, representation and advocacy. These featured clients from 15 EU member states. There were immediate benefits for claimants relating both to housing (e.g., preventing evictions; getting housing assistance) and finances (e.g., writing off overpayments; accessing benefits, including back payments). Some outcomes were worth tens of thousands of pounds and feedback was that “we would not have achieved this result without [O’Brien’s] help” [8]. The advisors supported by O’Brien in these disputes attest to the central significance of her input:

“[O’Brien] made a real difference to the outcomes, particularly of those clients with really technical cases.” [10d]

“[O’Brien] had a huge impact on my clients… She had so much expertise and knowledge that these decisions were often positive.” [10a]

“[O’Brien’s] project actually helped people at the same time as studying them – that’s what’s really unique about it.” [10b]

Indirect Assistance in the Resolution of Disputes Over Entitlements

In addition to direct advocacy support, O’Brien’s research also engaged in considerable knowledge exchange in order to build the capacity of others to reproduce her expertise for the benefit of the wider body of EU nationals in the UK. For example, she wrote articles for publications with wide circulation amongst advisor audiences to inform the advisory networks supporting EU nationals (e.g., Advisor; Poverty: Journal of the Child Poverty Action Group). She also contributed to briefing documents for the Public Law Project, subsequently circulated to a broad range of advice organisations, including Citizens Advice Bureaux, housing lawyers’ advisory groups, Greater Manchester Welfare Rights Advisors Groups, the Brexit Civil Society Alliance, and the Birmingham Welfare Rights Advisors [10c]. She convened knowledge exchange events with advice organisations around the country, gathering data on problems they had encountered and offering training at the same time. Feedback from these events was excellent and demonstrates the significance of their impact in terms of knowledge exchange and capacity building:

“I have a much clearer understanding of those rules and can therefore do a better job for my clients, [with] lots of useful stuff I can take away and use.” [9]

“[O’Brien] encouraged me to learn more and to understand the residency rules for EU nationals, allowing me to do more and more on my own… I became the person that people would come to for advice … I was a bit of a champion for challenging negative decisions instead of accepting them.” [10a]

Indirect Assistance in the Prevention of Disputes Over Entitlements

Whereas the support of dispute resolution is essentially backwards-facing – challenging a decision that has already been made – O’Brien’s work also had forwards-facing impact in the prevention of disputes. The capacity-building aspect of her action research project enabled advisors to give advice to clients about how to take steps to avoid negative decisions and disputes in the future. As one advisor noted:

“I also used this knowledge to give preventative advice … I would tell [clients] what documents to keep, just in case they needed to make a claim in the future.” [10a]

Indirect Assistance by Influencing the Decision-Making Practices of Governmental Agencies

A second preventative form of impact relates to O’Brien’s influence over routine decision-making practices within the governmental agencies responsible for determining welfare claims. O’Brien’s advocacy work changed the ways in which entitlement decisions were made in the first place. In relation to a number of her case studies, she reported the problematic nature of decision-making directly to the UK government agencies concerned: the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC. Among the responses received, recorded on the case files, was an undertaking to train all helpline advisors on a specific point about claimants’ rights: specifically, that they were entitled to keep an appeal live whilst making a new claim based on different circumstances [under the terms of the ethical permission to conduct this research, all file note evidence had to be destroyed].