Rethinking Dutch Human Rights Policy: Challenges and the Way Forward
On March 4, 2025, the Netherlands Helsinki Committee, together with the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy and The Hague Humanity Hub, hosted an insightful #Democracy Drinks discussion on the evaluation of Dutch human rights policy and its future direction. The event brought together policymakers, researchers, human rights advocates, and students for a critical reflection on the Netherlands’ approach to human rights—and how it can be made more effective.
Leading the discussion were Dr. Martin van Vliet (Coordinating Policy Researcher at the Directorate for International Research and Policy Evaluation (IOB)) and Veronika Pišorn (Coordinator of the Netherlands Human Rights Network, Breed Mensenrechten Overleg, BMO). Dr. van Vliet, having spent the last two years assessing Dutch human rights policy (2017–2022) as part of his role at the independent evaluation service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (IOB), presented key findings from the , published on February 11, 2025.
“The report focused on Dutch participation in various multilateral organizations, its financial and diplomatic efforts to promote human rights abroad, and how human rights are embedded in broader Dutch foreign policy. In addition, IOB examined the Netherlands’ response to the deteriorating international context and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ capacity to implement policy effectively.”
Impression from the evening in the Humanity Hub
Key challenges:, Civil Society, Civic Space and Coherence
Three pressing challenges emerged from the discussion:
- Strengthening civil society participation
- Tackling shrinking civic space
- Ensuring coherence between Dutch human rights policy and broader foreign policy priorities
One of the key concerns raised was the increasing restrictions on civil society in implementing human rights projects. Both Pišorn and van Vliet emphasized how state engagement often remains ad hoc, driven by short-term security crises rather than mid-term strategy. As van Vliet pointed out, many initiatives amount to symbolic gestures rather than strategic interventions with measurable mid-term goals:
“For Dutch human rights diplomacy to be more effective, it must bridge the gap between policy and practice, ensuring that commitments translate into tangible improvements on the ground.”
The discussion also examined the complexities of advocating for human rights in multilateral spaces, where non-western partner countries also prioritize socio-economic rights next to political and civil rights concerns. The Netherlands could do more to align to these priorities if it wants to solidify strong partnerships.
While Dutch diplomatic pressure has been effective in cases such as supporting human rights defenders in Egypt, more sensitive topics like LGBTQI+ rights remain highly contentious. Public statements from Western diplomats can sometimes backfire by reinforcing conservative opposition in target countries, underscoring the need for diplomacy that is both principled and pragmatic.
The relevance of policy coherence
Another critical issue highlighted by speakers was the lack of coherence between Dutch human rights rhetoric and its operational realities on the ground. A poignant example was Tunisia, where Dutch human rights policies have often operated in isolation from broader foreign policy objectives. While initially a focus for human rights support and the rule of law, Tunisia became a priority migration partner. This leads to a shift away from rights-based diplomacy toward migration dominated agreements. In this agreement, only generic references were made to human rights safeguards. The IOB report proposes several policy measures to take human rights into account in a more concrete manner.
“As we saw in the report, the Netherlands has the ambition to uphold human rights worldwide, but without a clearer long-term strategy and stronger execution, its impact remains limited.”
Similar policy contradictions were noted in the Dutch approach to trade and migration agreements, where human rights considerations were frequently sidelined in favor of economic or geopolitical interests. However, as van Vliet put it:
“For a country like the Netherlands, with its open society and export-oriented economy, promoting human rights and the rule of law is a clear strategic interest. It must not be treated as an afterthought but as a fundamental part of foreign policy decision-making.”
Looking ahead: Call for focus and long-term commitment
The event concluded with a call for a more strategic, coherent, and long-term commitment to Dutch human rights policy. Van Vliet emphasized the importance of fewer, but better-supported initiatives by the Dutch government to ensure stronger financial, diplomatic, and organizational backing.
“Funding for human rights initiatives is spread too thin—meaningful progress requires more focus, coherence, and commitment to long-term change.”
Additionally, more flexible and responsive funding mechanisms were proposed to allow embassies to better support civil society actors in responding to dynamic and emerging human rights challenges with their autonomy in mind.
Pišorn concluded the event by advocated for the mainstreaming of human rights across all policy areas, while raising a critical question:
“Human rights is a baseline that runs through every other policy. There’s this tension between human rights as a specific policy field that we need to promote, work on, fund, teach, and train, and the thought that it belongs in every other sector. And if you do put it in every sector, how do you make sure it’s not just #17 on the list of things that they have to talk about when they’re doing a trade treaty or a migration treaty?”
As the Dutch government continues to evaluate its human rights framework, discussions like these remain vital for fostering informed dialogue and shaping a more effective and principled approach to human rights diplomacy.
An English summary of the evaluation report will be made available at the IOB-website:
