Impact case study database

(i) Facilitating solutions to legal logjams

Ethiopia/Ogaden: From 2013 to 2018, Bell supported the peace process to end long-running conflict between the Ethiopian Government and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), through workshops, legal briefings, and meetings with parties and the Kenyan facilitation team. Her research (3.1) supported the ONLF to construe international self-determination law and the Ethiopian constitution as linked rather than in opposition (5.1, 5.2), overcoming the key logjam preventing negotiations. The ONLF Chairman (lead negotiator) confirmed that Bell’s research: “clarified to ONLF key issues regarding their rights and helped formulate ONLF positions and decisions. Previously, ONLF rejected the Ethiopian constitution, however, after deliberating on Christine Bell’s legal opinion and the legal impact of accepting the constitution the ONLF accepted the formula suggested by Ms Bell that facilitated the impasse between the two parties and paved the way eventually for the peace agreement” (5.1). The Chairman further stated: “Christine Bell’s research played a decisive fact in the Ogaden peace agreement…The peace agreement made [Ogaden] the most peaceful area in Ethiopia today and the war has stopped…The ONLF is a registered political party that is preparing to take part in the coming Ethiopian elections” (5.1). Colombia: Bell’s research (3.1, 3.2) was used by both the Colombian Government and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to reach a comprehensive peace agreement. As an eminent Colombian scholar and human rights activist stated: “Her idea of Lex Pacificatoria was explicitly used during the negotiations and was instrumental to the idea of understanding the peace agreement as a sui generis special agreement of humanitarian law, that would be accompanied by an international statement by the president to confer some international legal status to the peace agreement” (5.3). According to lead negotiator and Colombian High Commissioner for Peace: “The issue of legal guarantees came towards the end of the [negotiations], when much was agreed, and without a solution could have risked the entire process. Bell’s work was used…in the highly technical work of designing and agreeing the layered legal status of the [2016 Colombian peace] agreement” (5.4). A lawyer for the FARC confirmed (translated from original Spanish): “We needed tools of law applicable to post-conflict settings, and the work of Bell opened important avenues for the creation of a stable legal system” (5.5). The lasting impact was the final peace agreement between the Government and the FARC. This ended one of the longest-running conflicts in Latin America and has survived difficult implementation moments because “ the issue of legal status had been given a clear track through the Congress and Constitutional Court” (5.4).(ii) Supporting constitutional development to address sub-state claims Myanmar: Since 2018, Welikala has supported Myanmar’s complex and prolonged ‘twin transition’ from authoritarianism to democracy and from conflict to peace. In particular, his sub-state constitution-making research (3.3) was, as evidenced by the Acting Head of the Constitutional Building Programme for International IDEA, “extensively used” to support meetings of Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) to engage in sub-state constitution drafting, which was “a key element of peace-building and federalisation in Myanmar” (5.6). He supported EAOs to formulate common positions on the need to negotiate a constitutional amendment to permit sub-state constitutions, thereby meeting military concerns relating to secession (5.6, referring to 3.3). He also advised on federal constitutionalism with key institutions of the state including judges and staff of the Constitutional Tribunal and Supreme Court, and the Attorney General’s Office. His work “had a crucial impact on the peace process” by “creating legal dialogue on the types of sub-state constitution-making that will be a necessary part of any accommodation with the claim of ethnic armed organisations” (5.6). (iii) Supporting peaceful referendums Bougainville/Papua New Guinea (PNG): Tierney and Bell’s work (3.4, 3.5, 3.6) supported the design of an independence referendum process to ensure a successful peace agreement. Her context-specific recommendations addressing conflict risks (3.6) were adopted, including: consultation about the question; a joint inter-governmental ‘post-referendum’ task force; simple majority threshold; public information; and use of an international force (5.7, 5.8). These recommendations, as affirmed by the South East Asia and the Pacific Programme Director for Conciliation Resources, “ contributed greatly to a peaceful referendum through enabling both governments to analyse and plan for conflict threats” and to reaching “ an agreed negotiation process…for the post-referendum period” (5.8). As a result, Bell was appointed to a four-person expert team by the Governments of Bougainville and PNG to review legal and constitutional aspects of the peace agreement’s implementation, in anticipation of the referendum (5.7, 5.8).

The Brexit process is a huge undertaking requiring rapid legal change. The House of Lords Constitution Committee issued three reports on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (5.1, 5.2, 5.3), causing the Government to accept critical amendments, many in direct response to the Committee’s recommendations and alleviating serious constitutional problems in the original text. The constitutional danger was that the executive would have considerable unchecked power. Tierney and Elliott’s research on constitutional risks informed the Committee’s work in concrete ways and resulting recommendations accepted by the Government had a substantial impact on the constitutional efficacy of the final Act. Tierney was appointed as legal adviser to the Committee in 2015, an ongoing appointment since then. Elliott was co-adviser from 2016 to 2019. As the Committee’s only legal advisers, Tierney and Elliott played a central role throughout the Bill’s process through Parliament. Their research underpinned advice on the Bill’s constitutional defects and achieved reform in three main respects.

(i) Retained EU law

Tierney and Elliott identified glaring inconsistencies in the status of ‘retained EU law’, highlighting problems for legal certainty and rule of law (5.3, based on 3.1). In particular, the Bill did not distinguish between technical matters and retained law of real substance. The Government accepted that the Committee highlighted “undeniably an important issue” (5.5) and it reshaped the status of retained EU law significantly, delineating ‘principal’ and ‘minor’ areas of law to which different forms of parliamentary scrutiny apply.

(ii) Court of Justice case law

Tierney and Elliott highlighted the vague status that ECJ case law would have after Brexit (5.3), emphasising how confusing this would be for Parliament’s own supremacy and for UK judges who could be drawn into political controversy – issues at the heart of rule of law (3.2). The original provision offered courts an open-ended instruction to ‘have regard to anything done…by the European Court…if it considers it appropriate to do so’. Tierney and Elliott recommended that this provision be changed to ‘taking account of matters relevant to the proper interpretation of retained EU law’, which the Committee adopted (3.2). In light of the Committee’s recommendations, the Bill was amended and the EUWA, section 7(2), adopts this relevancy test (5.4).

(iii) Delegated powers

The Bill conferred extensive delegated powers to correct ‘failures’ or ‘deficiencies’ in retained EU law, heralding a fundamental shift in power from Parliament to Government. Tierney and Elliott advanced three main criticisms (based on 3.1).

Breadth of power: The Government agreed to accept a duty to provide an ‘explanatory statement’ when making secondary law, facilitating proper parliamentary scrutiny (5.1, 5.3). Significantly, explanatory statements have since been accepted for other bills. For example, a similar provision was inserted into the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 following the Committee’s recommendation, again informed by Tierney and Elliot (5.6).

Limited exclusions: Tierney and Elliott criticised the unlimited range of discretionary powers in section 8 of the Bill (5.3), signalling that they could be used in constitutionally inappropriate ways to create new public authorities or amend the devolution statutes for Scotland and Wales (3.3). The Government accepted this criticism and the Bill was amended to ensure that section 8 cannot be used for such purposes. Tierney and Elliott also questioned an international obligations-related power in clause 8 of the Bill. The Committee adopted this advice, leading to the removal of clause 8 through an amendment tabled in the Lords (5.7).

Delegated powers: Tierney and Elliott gave detailed advice on improved scrutiny of delegated powers. The Committee adopted their approach, asserting that the original provision (clause 17 of the Bill) seemed to permit very broad regulations to be made under the cover of ‘consequential’ measures (5.3). Key reforms are that stronger scrutiny is now in place for regulations that make policy changes and the creation of a ‘sifting committee’ to determine what these measures are (5.4). Another key recommendation was that delegated powers should be subject to a time limit. The Government agreed to a 10-year ‘sunset clause’ (5.3).

These changes ensured for Parliament a significantly greater role in controlling the executive’s delegated law-making power after Brexit . The Clerk to the Constitution Committee confirmed: “The work of Professor Tierney and Professor Elliott on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill assisted the Constitution Committee’s scrutiny of this important legislation and the influence it was able to bring to bear on the final form of the law” (5.8).

(i) New international laws on inclusive peace processes

As part of the UN’s 15-year review of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, Bell provided input through commissioned papers and workshops. PSRP research was extensively cited in the UN review (5.1), informed recommendations in the 2015 UN Secretary General’s (UNSG) Report to the Security Council (5.2) and influenced UNSCR 2242 (5.3). The Senior Gender Adviser to the UNSG affirmed that PSRP research was “critical to informing policy thinking, norms, and programming practice to achieve the overall goals of the United Nations in this area” (5.4); tracing its impact on UNSCR 2242 to “Article 1 which requires better inclusion of women in peace processes and better technical advice to both women and mediators to increase the effectiveness of talks”, and to paragraph 7, which *“recommends inclusion of women at all stages of a process”* (5.4). Further data and analysis informed follow-up reviews resulting in more specific commitments; for example, the 2018 UNSG Report (5.5.a) and subsequent UNSCR 2493 (5.5.b) promoting: “ the direct representation of women in negotiations and striving for gender-balanced mediation teams with members who are well versed in obligations related to gender equality and women, peace and security” (5.4, referring to 5.5.a, 5.5.b).

PSRP work supported the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), comprising the 37 main aid-donor states, to better integrate overseas development support with conflict resolution strategies. Specifically, it contributed to the implementation of the OECD Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) ‘Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus’ – a new legal instrument that provides “a comprehensive framework that can incentivise and implement more collaborative and complementary humanitarian, development and peace actions, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected situations” (5.6.a). The former head of the International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF) Secretariat at the OECD stated: “The contribution of PSRP’s research findings and discussion amongst INCAF members were an important aspect in helping to shape this instrument – including the incorporation of key elements around (1) the utilisation of political engagement and other tools, instruments and approaches at all levels to prevent crises, resolve conflicts and build peace (Clause III, 3 a-c); (2) the prioritisation of prevention, mediation and peacebuilding, investing in development whenever possible (Clause IV, 1 a-f); (3) putting ‘people at the centre’ and providing opportunities for conflict affected groups to engage in peace processes (Clause IV, 2 a-b)” (5.6.b).

(ii) Supporting women to navigate inclusion

PSRP worked as a core partner with UN Women on programming to enhance women’s leadership in Middle East peace processes (5.1). It developed novel training materials in Arabic and English and provided tailored technical support for advisory bodies established by UN mediators (5.7.a, 5.7.b). As an Advisor for Women, Peace and Security for UN Women confirmed: “the collaboration resulted in commitments from the mediation teams on Yemen and Syria to ensure women’s inclusion in processes that would otherwise almost exclusively involve men. PSRP can therefore claim credit not only for this significant change in the polic[ie]s of mediation teams regarding women’s inclusion, but also for providing women peace makers with the tools and strategies needed to influence peace for more justice societies” (5.7.b). PSRP also co-designed a PeaceFem app, providing easy-access advice on gender strategies and drafting on inclusion in English and Arabic (over 900 downloads) (5.7.c).

(iii) Re-shaping global policy on the development-peace nexus

PSRP research (3.2, 3.3) provided “a vital part of the evidence base” for the flagship UN/World Bank study, ‘Pathways for Peace’ (5.8), and is specifically cited on the need for political strategies to manage the relationship between inclusion and political contestation (5.9). The former Senior Advisor to the UNSG Peacebuilding Support Office (report co-author) stated: “Since its launch in 2018, Pathways for Peace has been downloaded over 100,000 times, from over 100 countries…[and] has been used as source material in the development of the World Bank Group’s first ever Fragility, Conflict and Violence Strategy, the US government task force report on Preventing Extremism in Fragile States and the first ever OECD legal recommendations to DAC members” (5.8).

PSRP research was also central to the ‘UK Approach to Stabilisation: A Guide for Policy Makers and Practitioners’ (5.10.a). As the Conflict and Stabilisation Advisor for the Stabilisation Unit explained, there has been notable success in: “the use of the guide to inform Libya…and Yemen strategy development and stabilisation programming in…Mali and Yemen…and in influencing international partners’ approach to stabilisation, including at the UN and within the Stabilisation Leaders Forum” (5.10.b).

Research by the Mason Institute had a major impact on the design and delivery of health research regulation in three overlapping fields of influence.

(i) Guiding responsible data use internationally

The Good Governance Framework for data sharing in Scotland – developed by Laurie and Sethi (REF 2014 impact case study) – has since been endorsed and applied internationally and beyond the health sector. This was achieved because research in the census period demonstrated that interoperable governance is possible irrespective of local laws.

In 2015, Laurie was appointed as the sole international member of the Expert Panel of the Council of Canadian Academies on ‘Accessing Health and Health-Related Data in Canada’. The Chair of the Expert Group stated: “One of the best practices endorsed by the Expert Panel in their report’s key findings is Scotland’s good governance framework…[t]he report has since been used widely by stakeholders across Canada. The leading sponsor of the assessment, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, has used it as an important resource for a number of significant policy initiatives including its health research data framework and Canada’s Tri-Agency Statement of Principles on Digital Management” (5.1).

The Director of Research Strategy and Funding at the Irish Health Research Board also confirmed the influence of the framework in an important report, ‘Proposals for an Enabling Data Environment for Health and Related Research in Ireland’ (2016). Specifically: “[i]t is cited at several points throughout the report to highlight that a principled, proportionate, risk-based approach to governance is required to support…safe national research infrastructures as extant legal frameworks are often inadequate and overly restrictive. This report has laid the foundation for a proof of concept project that is currently underway to trial the proposed infrastructure. Going forward with the plans to develop national infrastructure in Ireland to support data sharing and linkage of health and social care data, the good governance framework developed by Laurie and colleagues will continue to inform Irish best practice” (5.2).

On behalf of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, the Chief Executive Officer stated: “Laurie and Dove’s work with the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health led directly to the development and implementation of a Data Privacy and Security Policy across its consortium of nearly 600 health research organisations in more than 50 countries. This Policy emphasized the importance of proportionate and harmonized privacy and security safeguards, and contributed to international alignment in this area” (5.3).

(ii) Justifying research on biomedical collections

The report on the Scottish Guthrie card collection (3.4) has had both national and international impact. For ScotGov’s Chief Scientist Office, a Senior Research Manager confirmed: “The report and subsequent input by the authors and colleagues from the Mason Institute into the supporting materials, deliberations and conclusions of a stakeholder workshop in 2019 underpins the Scottish Government’s current approach. This is to more firmly establish the research utility of the Archive, and to establish a proposition for [its] use through public engagement including, but not limited to, formal public consultation. The conclusions of these reports are also helping to shape and provide important supporting evidence for public consultation/engagement documentation being prepared to explore the use of the Archive as a unique research resource of potential international interest” (5.4). The influence of this report and Laurie’s “ principal role” in shaping the revised Council of Europe Recommendation on biomedical collections are verified by the Secretary of the Committee on Bioethics (5.5).

(iii) Promoting public interest in law reform

Sorbie worked with the funder (Wellcome) to influence the UK’s Data Protection Act 2018. Previously, a narrow reading of the public interest in the proposed legislation threatened to impede data sharing to the detriment of responsible health research. Sorbie’s advice, based on her deep understanding of public interest (3.6), was used directly by Wellcome in its parliamentary lobbying: “Ms Sorbie’s research very much contributed to a set of briefings on the Bill that I believe were compelling for Government to take our concerns seriously and engage with Wellcome as knowledgeable stakeholders. For example, we did succeed in getting Government to table an amendment to protect interventional research which was critically important for protecting clinical trials. In addition, there was a shift in the wording of the explanatory notes that accompanied the Bill in relation to the public interest clause (Section 8). Having originally made no reference to health research, these explanatory notes were subsequently amended to include wording that specifically referred to health research by universities” (5.6).

(i) Raising the age of criminal responsibility (ACR) in Scotland

The Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 marked a radical change in juvenile justice and brought Scotland more into line with international human rights standards than other UK jurisdictions. ESYTC formed the underpinning evidence for this change, as stated in the Policy Memorandum accompanying the Bill when introduced to Parliament (5.1).

Legislative change was initiated by a Scottish Government Advisory Group on ACR, established in 2016, which extensively used ESYTC findings to inform debate and support its recommendation to raise ACR to 12 (5.2). Robert Marshall (Chair of the Scottish Government Advisory Group) stated: “[The ESYTC] provided us with solid evidence on which we based our discussions, playing a significant part in informing and guiding the thoughts of the Advisory Group in order to make recommendations that the law be changed” (5.3) . Paul Carberry (Advisory Group member and Director of Action for Children Scotland) stated: “There is no doubt the study by McAra and McVie has been the most influential academic research into youth justice in the 30 years I have been working in this area. The findings significantly influenced the approach to working with young people in trouble to the significant benefit of many thousands of children and young people in Scotland…[T]he research findings were widely drawn upon and provided an important benchmark for a group of advisors from different professional backgrounds” (5.4) .

An independent inquiry was launched by Action for Children and the Scottish Children’s Commissioner to feed evidence into the Advisory Group. McAra and McVie were key contributors (5.5). Richard Holloway (Chair of the inquiry) stated: “The evidence from the [ESYTC] was enormously helpful in our work and was hugely influential to our thinking…Their findings have demonstrated convincingly that criminalising children is not only wrong, it is counterproductive. Professors McAra and McVie can claim credit not only for this significant change in policy, but also for providing irrefutable evidence that the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland, currently set at 8 years of age, is both morally and empirically unsupportable. And the Edinburgh Study was undoubtedly one of the key catalysts behind the current Bill” (5.6).

A Scottish Parliament Information Centre Briefing Paper on the Bill heavily cited the ESYTC in support of raising ACR (5.7); and McVie gave expert evidence to a Parliamentary Committee (5.8.a), which was debated by MSPs during passage of the Bill through Parliament (5.8.b).

(ii) Youth Justice Strategy

In December 2014, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) published its ‘Vision for Young People in Custody’, a strategy aimed at ensuring that time spent in custody by young people should “enable them to prepare for a positive future” (5.9.a). The Professional Advisor for the Young People’s Strategy with the SPS stated: “Evidence from the Edinburgh Study provided an essential part of the evidence base for design of the SPS strategy and has continued to inform thinking during the implementation stages” (5.9.b); and further noted: “It is very important that staff who work with young people in custody understand this evidence, to combat any misconceptions and to give them a sound base from which to undertake their role in supporting the young people to prepare for a positive future. Messages from the Study have been incorporated into staff training and development” (5.9.b).

ESYTC findings also formed the basis of the Scottish Government’s national ‘Youth Justice Strategy 2015-20’, aimed at improving life chances for children and young people up to age 21. According to the Strategy: “Findings from the [ESYTC] tell us that: serious offending is linked to a broad range of vulnerabilities and social adversity; early identification of at-risk children runs the risk of labelling and stigmatising; pathways out of offending are affected by critical moments in the early teenage years. In particular, school inclusion and diversionary strategies facilitate the desistance process. This strategy is founded on a shared commitment to dealing with the issues raised by that evidence” (5.10.a).

Following implementation of these strategies, national statistics on Criminal Proceedings in the Scottish Courts published by the Scottish Government showed major reductions in the number of young people aged under 21 entering the criminal justice system. This included a 34% reduction in convictions in the Scottish Courts between 2014/15 and 2018/19 (5.10.b) and a 45% reduction in imprisonment between 2014/15 and 2019/20 (5.10.c). These are the lowest numbers since comparable records began in 1972 (5.10.d).

Published in January 2014, Murray’s research (3.1) generated enormous political and public debate. Her findings put stop-and-search on the political agenda, prompted parliamentary debate and gained widespread media attention, with stop-and-search referenced over 130 times in press reports in the 7 months following publication. The Scottish Liberal Democrat Leader raised Murray’s research in the Scottish Parliament and recommended changes to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to improve regulation of the practice (5.1). However, the research prompted a backlash from both Police Scotland and the Scottish Government. The Chief Constable denied Murray’s claims about a performance-driven policing culture, despite documentary evidence and testimonials from police officers; and both the Justice Secretary (Kenny MacAskill) (5.2) and First Minister (Alex Salmond) (5.3) defended intensive stop-and-search, claiming its use was proportionate and had reduced violent crime in Scotland, despite a lack of evidence.

Formal reviews of Police Scotland’s stop-and-search processes were conducted by the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) in 2014 and by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) in 2015. Both concluded that greater transparency and regulation were needed. In March 2015, the Justice Secretary (Michael Matheson) established the IAGSS to consider legislative reform and whether a Code of Practice (CoP) was necessary. The IAGSS was chaired by John Scott QC and included representatives from Police Scotland, SPA, HMICS, Scottish Government and third sector organisations. McVie was also appointed a member.

In August 2015, the IAGSS presented recommendations to the Justice Secretary (Matheson), including proposals to abolish non-statutory stop-and-search and introduce a CoP and extensively citing Murray and McVie’s research (5.4). McVie ensured that the IAGSS also recommended regular publication of stop-and-search data to improve transparency. The recommendations were fully accepted by the Cabinet Secretary and incorporated into Section 65 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. The CoP was drafted by the IAGSS and implemented in May 2017, with McVie playing a leading role in aspects of its development. John Scott QC, IAGSS Chair, stated: “Professor McVie was an integral member of the IAGSS at all stages of its work over a 4 year period. Concerns about stop and search received media and political attention because of analysis of data by academics. It was therefore crucial for the IAGSS to understand what that data meant…We could not have done this without Professor McVie’s expertise” (5.5.a).

The IAGSS continued monitoring the use of stop-and-search and McVie played a critical role in this process with responsibility for providing research reviews on the implementation of the CoP for the Cabinet Secretary after 6 and 12 months (5.5.a-5.5.c). Providing detailed analysis and scrutiny of the extent, nature, geographical patterning and proportionality of stop-and-search, McVie reported that recorded searches had reduced to 32,300 in 2017/18 – down 92% from 2014/15 (5.5.b, 5.5.c). The IAGSS used McVie’s reviews to make further recommendations for legislative amendments; for example, on the use of stop-and-search to remove alcohol from young people (5.6).

McVie and Murray’s work also contributed to increased scrutiny by SPA and HMICS, and the development of three Improvement Plans around stop-and-search through working closely with Police Scotland’s National Stop and Search Unit, of which the Head of Unit stated: “[T]he work carried out by Professor McVie and Dr Murray…has without doubt, directly influenced and informed the significant improvements to the practice and policy of stop and search across Scotland” (5.7). They created internal assurance metrics to monitor ‘proportionality, fairness and effectiveness’ (5.8), and produced a Data Analysis Reference Guide to support statistical analysis of stop-and-search data to determine whether it is being used fairly and effectively. The SPA Policing Committee commended these methods of improving data scrutiny and the accountability of Police Scotland in the use of such an intrusive and controversial tactic (5.9).

Introduction of the CoP required a major training programme for all Police Scotland officers (approximately 15,000). McVie and Murray contributed to its development and their research fed into the new Police Scotland Standard Operating Procedure. This training was instrumental in changing operational approaches – away from stop-and-search towards ‘stop and engage’ – and contributed to both cultural and normative transformation of police practice.

Despite criticism that the stop-and-search policy change would lead to a significant increase in violent crime, ongoing research indicates that this has not occurred. Police Scotland has stated that lessons learned throughout the stop-and-search improvement journey have informed its wider policing approach, especially around violence reduction, and provided a collaborative, preventative and evidence-based focus across all policing priorities (5.10).