5 questions about the university's new human rights framework

1. Why has this framework been drafted?

The excessive violence perpetrated by the Israeli government in Gaza has prompted Utrecht University (UU) to establish criteria for its collaborations and human rights. These criteria are intended to clarify when UU should or should not collaborate with institutions in countries involved in armed conflict or where international and humanitarian law are being violated.

The Executive Board has established the Temporary Human Rights Committee to develop an assessment framework with criteria. The committee has now shared a draft of this framework with the University Council (the document is accessible only to users with a Solis ID, Ed.). The council is tasked with evaluating the draft, but the process has been delayed while it seeks legal advice on its role. While the Executive Board wishes to be advised by the University Council, the council believes it should have the right of consent.

2. What does the document say?

According to the committee, the university is also “a human rights actor”. Human rights treaties oblige states, companies, organisations, universities and other institutions to respect human rights and make every effort to prevent human rights violations, insofar as they have influence over the matter.

The framework includes a flowchart to help researchers assess collaborations in terms of human rights and international law. "In principle", research involving a high risk of human rights violations is not allowed. It says "in principle" because the framework does not, by definition, prescribe which collaborations cannot go ahead.

In the event of a moderate or high risk, the researcher should first consult their faculty support team, such as the Research Support Offices (RSO). If further advice is required, the Research Collaboration Evaluation Committee (ECOS), a central-level body, becomes involved. The dean ultimately decides whether or not to adopt ECOS’s advice. If the dean chooses to deviate from the advice, it is up to the rector to make the final decision.

3. Which partnerships are, in principle, not allowed?

The committee outlines three scenarios involving high-risk partnerships that are, in principle, not allowed. In the first scenario, it is the partner that violates human rights. This also includes partners featured on sanctions lists maintained by the Dutch government, the European Union, and the United Nations. Collaborating with Russia, for example, is not allowed.

In the second scenario, a partner contributes to human rights violations through a third party. This includes universities that develop military technology used by the army to commit human rights violations and partners that "do not intervene to stop violations even though they have the capacity to do so”.

In the third scenario, a partner is not guilty of human rights violations, but the collaboration is problematic anyway because this partner “can legitimise violations by the state”. For example, if the university in question has close ties with the government, the risk of human rights violations is high. 

Such universities may be involved in government projects linked to human rights violations, such as training military personnel, or may have expressed support for government policy. The government may also influence their education and research by determining the research agenda, the curriculum or the appointment of academic staff.

4. What does the framework mean for UU's cooperation with Israel?

The committee does not make decisions regarding specific collaborations. The basic principle is that the rules apply to all partnerships with a risk of human rights violations. Israeli universities have long been under fire due to their close ties with the Israeli government, the army and the weapons industry, which means the framework will also have implications for Utrecht University's collaborations with Israel. It will be very difficult for UU to enter into further collaborations with Israeli partners that do not distance themselves from government policy.

For example, Ben-Gurion University, with which UU currently maintains three projects, runs a programme in collaboration with the Israeli Ministry of Defence and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). The programme, which is also funded by the ministry and the defence forces, recruits personnel for the IDF and provides military training. In addition, Ben-Gurion University is developing military technology in collaboration with the IDF.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, with which UU is still collaborating on one project, also runs a programme that trains students in military technology in collaboration with the IDF, as well as a programme that prepares students for the IDF’s military intelligence services.

5. Does the new framework also apply to existing projects?

No, the Executive Board tasked the committee with developing a framework exclusively for new partnerships. Existing projects will go on. However, the committee does allow for new partnerships assessed against this new framework to be reconsidered at a later date if the human rights situation in the partner country deteriorates. It is up to academics and research groups themselves to do this if new risks come to light. The ECOS also monitors changes in a country's situation and informs researchers if risks increase.

The Temporary Human Rights Committee was formed by the Executive Board in consultation with the deans. The committee comprised Louis Bont from the Faculty of Medicine; Antoine Buyse from Law, Economics & Governance; Professor José van Dijck; Maarten Flinkenflögel from the Students, Education and Research Directorate; Katharine Fortin from Law, Economics & Governance; Professor Beatrice de Graaf from the Faculty of Humanities; Jorg Huijding from the Faculty of Social Sciences; Cedric Ryngaert from Law, Economics & Governance; Stefan Vandoren from the Faculty of Science; and Marcel Verweij from the Faculty of Humanities. The vice-rector for research, Ted Sanders, chaired the committee.

The new framework complements the Integrated Research Assessment Framework from 2024, which brought together several other frameworks, guidelines and codes of conduct concerning risks and ethical concerns associated with collaborations.