HRJust has published a new report exploring how human rights are used within Swedish legislative processes and how civil society responds. In the report, authors Maria Nääv and Haidar Al-amirtaha, examine what we refer to as Human Rights Justifications (HRJs), where the state invokes human rights to support or legitimise its own proposals. Drawing on consultation responses to recent legislative inquiries, the analysis looks at how human rights organisations engage with, challenge, or navigate these arguments in practice.
Human rights are meant to protect individuals from state power, but when used by the state to justify its actions, that role can shift. The report explains that responding to this often requires legal expertise, which not all organisations have. This risks weakening rights-based arguments and shifting the conversation from legal obligations to questions of needs and interests.
For HRJust, this raises important questions about accountability, participation, and the role of human rights in legislative processes. Ensuring that human rights remain a framework for holding power to account is central to our work.
Read the full report here: How Human Rights Organisations Respond to the Use of Human Rights Justifications in Swedish Legislative Preparatory Works, Maria Nääv & Haidar Al-amirtaha