An emblematic case is the decision of the University of Pisa to suspend two framework agreements with Israeli counterparts, which shortly followed an amendment to the University’s Statute that now “recognises peace as a fundamental principle and commits to promoting its application across all institutional activities”. Accordingly, the Academic Senate held that all collaborations must be evaluated in light of “the Statute’s core values of peace, justice, and ethical responsibility”. Similarly, the University of Padua’s decision not to undertake new agreements with Israeli partners “that contribute to the continuation of severe violations of international law and the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory” explicitly refers to the University Statute, according to which the University “promotes the development of a culture founded on universal values such as human rights, peace, environmental protection, and international solidarity”. Along the same lines, the University of Milan’s decision not to “sign or renew any agreement with universities, institutions or other stakeholders that are implicated directly or indirectly in these violations” was based on the premise that “all academic cooperation agreements must be consistent with fundamental rights, the promotion of peace, as well as any other rights protected by the University Statute”.

These developments suggest a growing willingness on the part of Italian universities to acknowledge their role and responsibilities in promoting peace and human rights, as well as to act accordingly. They also indicate that international agreements not aligned with universities’ statutory commitments should, in principle, be avoided or suspended. At the same time, however, it should be noted that the decisions mentioned above were adopted mainly in response to public pressure and as exceptional measures, rather than pursuant to pre-established criteria and procedures. In fact, even the institutions that decided to suspend or review agreements have not, to date, developed human rights policies specifically aimed at preventing academic collaborations from being concluded with partners involved in human rights violations, leaving it unclear how such decisions will be concretely implemented. A limited step in this direction can be found in the recent amendment to the Dual−Use Research Guidelines of Sapienza University of Rome, which introduces due diligence requirements for certain collaborations with non-EU partners. However, limiting screening mechanisms to dual−use research fails to address universities’ human rights responsibilities as broadly defined in their statutes.

Therefore, in order to ensure full consistency between formal commitments and practice, Italian academic institutions should consider designing and implementing due diligence procedures for all their academic and institutional activities, including international agreements. Moreover, although universities’ statutes normally refer to peace and human rights as fundamental principles, these references are often vague and do not properly define the nature and scope of such commitments. In particular, there has so far been no debate within Italian academia on whether universities have mere social responsibilities to respect human rights – similarly to business enterprises under the international business and human rights framework – or whether they are directly bound by international human rights norms as State organs under international law. Arguably, addressing these theoretical issues and developing operational frameworks regulating the conclusion of international collaborations would not only enhance coherence between formal commitments and practice, but also allow universities to respond to human rights concerns – such as those raised by partnerships with certain Israeli institutions – more rapidly and effectively than they have done in recent years.

Academic freedom as the foundation

Within the development of the assessment framework, academic freedom took primacy, as being the main and most fundamental condition for research and education. Academic freedom encompasses, among other things, the freedom to choose research topics and to share research results at conferences and lectures, but importantly also the freedom to collaborate with other scientists, scientific institutions, and universities. When considering the termination of an institutional partnership, the latter freedom is seemingly at stake.

However, academic freedom is not absolute and like most fundamental rights, is subject to limits. These can include international sanctions, internal university regulations, and knowledge security guidelines. Crucially, according to our approach, grave and systematic human rights violations as well as systematic breaches of scientific integrity also serve as a minimum limit to academic freedom. Any direct and specific involvement with such violations cannot be justified as being protected under academic freedom and, therefore, calls into question maintaining or entering an institutional partnership.

This naturally raises a few questions: under what circumstances does the committee consider there to be grave and systematic violations of human rights and/or systematic breaches of scientific integrity? What counts as direct and specific involvement? And, when an institutional partnership is terminated, what are the consequences for individual researchers and students? Addressing these questions one-by-one provides a clear illustration of the Nijmegen approach.

Application of human rights and scientific integrity

With respect to human rights and scientific integrity, the Nijmegen approach does not seek to reinvent the wheel. Rather, it aligns itself with authoritative and widely accepted standards. For scientific integrity it relies on the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA code). Regarding human rights this includes frameworks such as the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the Genocide Convention (1948).

Furthermore, in assessing whether there are grave and systematic human rights violations the committee draws from court decisions and legal opinions (such as the Hague Court of Appeal and the UN International Court of Justice) and reports from credible independent sources such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Scholars at Risk.

Determining whether a university is directly involved in human rights violations can be challenging, as responsibility for such violations typically lies with the government under which the university inevitably operates. Direct involvement, however, may include practices such as active religious or racial discrimination against staff and students, or the systematic undermining of their rights to demonstrate and freedom of expression.

Moreover, as observed in the case of certain Israeli universities (see: TAU, HUJI, BGU), direct involvement may also arise from extensive collaboration with entities responsible for human rights violations, such as the armed forces. Breaches of scientific integrity typically include suchlike actions by governments that undermine institutional independence with respect to research and education.

Academic freedom as an end

Ultimately, the committee has adopted a case-by-case approach, assessing collaborations at an institutional level (e.g. Memoranda of Understanding and faculty-level partnerships). Simultaneously, based on academic freedom, the Nijmegen approach leaves space for individual collaboration. Researchers and students remain free to work, in a personal capacity, with researchers from institutions whose partnerships with the university have been terminated.

The duality between institutional and individual is essential. It enables the university to take a principled stance without imposing a complete boycott. The freedom for individuals to maintain collaboration is preserved and, subsequently, academic freedom is placed at both the beginning and the end of the Nijmegen approach.