Introduction

In a global environment marked by armed conflicts and human rights abuses, universities are increasingly urged to address the ethical, social and legal implications of their cooperation agreements – such as bilateral or multilateral research projects and exchange programs − with foreign academic institutions involved in such violations. This might be the case when a partner directly commits an abuse (e.g. by enforcing discriminatory policies), as well as when it indirectly contributes to one (e.g. by developing military technologies later used in war crimes).

The issue is particularly topical in relation to certain Russian and Israeli universities allegedly contributing to war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by their respective government and army in the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip. Several Russian universities have explicitly committed to “support our country, our army,(…), and our President” in the war (see the statement of the Russian Union of Rectors of 4 March 2022), while the significant role of many Israeli universities in sustaining the illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territory, as well as their strict ties to security and intelligence services, has been widely documented.

In 2022, following recommendations from their governments, several European universities decided to interrupt their relations with Russian partners due to their endorsement of Moscow’s armed aggression (e.g. in Germany, UK, and Denmark). In 2024, students worldwide demanded the cancellation of collaborations with Israeli universities supporting Tel Aviv’s military operations and, in some cases, these demands were eventually upheld (e.g. in Norway, Italy and Belgium ). However, such decisions were rarely based on pre-established criteria and procedures specifically designed to ensure that academic agreements are not concluded (or are terminated) with institutions involved in human rights violations. In fact, although universities normally have their own codes of ethics – which often include respect for fundamental rights as an expected standard for academic activities − there are only few instances of universities having adopted internal policies that outline and operationalize their human rights responsibilities.

Best Practices: Ghent University’s Human Rights Policy

A notable exception to the lack of comprehensive approaches by universities regarding the potential human rights implications of their cooperation agreements with external partners is Ghent University’s Human Rights Policy (“Policy”), adopted in 2017. For an overview see Universities as Human Rights Actors.

The Policy is based on the assumption that universities play a crucial societal role through their educational and scientific activities, implying that they have the ability to influence the enjoyment of fundamental rights – either positively or negatively. According to Ghent University, this influence should be matched by a corresponding responsibility to promote and respect human rights, meaning that universities should maximize their positive impacts while avoiding negative ones. To provide a normative basis to this argument, the Policy refers to the international framework on business and human rights, specifically the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Ghent University argues that, just as business enterprises have responsibilities due to their ability to impact human rights through their commercial operations, universities should also have similar responsibilities with regard to their academic activities. In line with the UNGPs’ conceptualization of corporate responsibility, the Policy affirms that even if universities have no direct duties under international law, they still have a (moral) responsibility to operate with proper human rights due diligence. As such, the Policy can be compared to the codes of conducts adopted by business enterprises: a voluntary commitment to align its activities with the societal expectation that also non−state actors should respect human rights. While universities can affect human rights in a variety of situations – including for instance through recruitment policies, treatment of workers and purchasing practices − the Policy specifically applies to cooperation agreements “in the field of education, research or services to society”. Accordingly, the two due diligence mechanisms elaborated by Ghent University – a preventive and a reactive one − focus on avoiding involvements in human rights abuses in the context of such agreements

Firstly, the Policy requires a mandatory human rights impact assessments to be carried out prior to the conclusion of any cooperation agreement: as outlined in the specific guide, this requires assessing whether a) human rights might be violated during the planned activities or as a result of the misuse of the research results at a later stage, and b) the partner may be involved in human rights violations, independently from the activities to be developed in the context of the agreement. While a first assessment is assigned to the responsible for the project, a more comprehensive analysis is delegated to a specific organ − the Committee Human Rights Policy and Dual-Use Research – competent to advise on the measures to be taken to minimise the risk of human rights violations and to determine cases where collaborations should be avoided. Secondly, the Policy provides for a human rights clause to be included in all cooperation agreements, which allows both parties to terminate the collaboration in the event that “the other party is involved in a serious or systematic violation of human rights”. Notably, the clause is conceived as a measure of last efforts, meaning that before invoking it a party is required to communicate its concerns to the counterpart with the aim to pressure it to review the conducts considered problematic. According to the Policy, for the purposes of both the impact assessment and the termination clause, a partner’s “involvement” in human rights abuses refers to both directly committing the abuse and indirectly contributing to a third party’s abuse. Hence, examples of problematic collaborations include those with partners that systematically discriminate based on gender, ethnicity, political opinion, or that that provide goods and services that are likely to be used for human rights violations.

Following the adoption of Ghent University’s Policy, a similar initiative was undertaken by the Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR), an umbrella organization including Ghent University, University of Antwerp, Free University of Brussels, Hasselt University and KU Leuven. In 2019 the VLIR published its recommendations for implementing a human rights assessments at the Flemish universities, defined as a “a form of self-regulation by and for the Flemish universities” which “should be read as a common but non-binding set of guidelines that allow the Flemish universities to further shape their institutional human rights policy”. Another initiative that is worth mentioning is the recent adoption by Tilburg University of its own Human Rights Assessment Framework, through which it has committed to investigate whether its collaborations with external partners entail the risk of  “involvement in gross and systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms” and, if so, “determine from a moral standpoint its position vis-à-vis the collaboration or collaboration partner”..

Way Forward: Including Universities in the Business and Human Rights Field

The above indicates an increasing attention by universities to their responsibilities in the area of human rights, particularly with regard to the risks associated with their international agreements. The most innovative feature of this trend is the analogical application of the legal framework on business and human rights – specifically those concerning corporate human rights responsibility – to academic institutions. The topic has so far been absent from the doctrinal debate − with the exception of the mentioned paper Universities as Human Rights Actors and the article Universities’ responsibilities to respect and protect human rights transnationally: A critical discussion of collaboration and exchange between the UK and China – that deserves further consideration. The application of the UNGPs to universities is indeed supported by strong arguments.

On the one hand, there is room to consider private universities as “business enterprises” for the purposes of the UNGPs, which do not provide for a definition of the concept. On the other, public universities could be considered as state organs under international law and, therefore, they could be regarded as directly bound by the human rights norms binding for their home states. In any case, irrespective of whether universities’ responsibility is framed as a social expectation or a legal duty, the standards of conduct to comply with can be directly inferred from the UNGPs; namely, implementing human rights due diligence processes enabling them to identify, prevent, mitigate and bring to an end actual and potential human rights adverse impacts of their activities. Such process should be applied to all universities’ activities that might cause, contribute to or be directly linked with adverse human rights impacts, including in the context of cooperation agreements with foreign academic partners involved in human rights abuses. While adopting a human rights policy aimed at avoiding involvement  in human rights abuses would currently amount to a voluntary measure for universities, it cannot be excluded that such responsibilities may eventually turn into mandatory duties if national laws requiring universities to conduct human rights due diligence are implemented, as it is already happening for business enterprises. Before that, from a research perspective, efforts should focus on better conceptualizing the role of universities under international human rights law, with scholars in the business and human rights field being well-positioned to take the lead in this work.