How Urban Design is Failing Women’s Safety
We’ve all felt it. That momentary chill walking through a deserted public space at night, even when the lights are on. It’s that feeling of being "small and invisible", as urban planner Nourhan Bassam aptly describes it in a recent article for Dutch newspaper Nrc. It perfectly captures a paradox at the heart of community safety.
In the wake of tragedies, like the murder of 17-year-old Lisa in Amsterdam on a cycle path women had already flagged as unsafe, the typical response is a call for "formal security measures". This usually means more CCTV or a greater police presence.
But as the report highlights, these measures don't always make women feel safer. Why? Because CCTV only helps after the fact. At the moment of the crime, it’s useless.
The real issue, experts argue, is that our cities have been historically designed by and for their "original planner: the man". This has created environments that fail to account for the lived experience and safety perceptions of women.
The Failure of Design: Formal vs. Social Safety
The core problem is a simple lack of 'eyes on the street' — a term famously coined by the visionary writer and activist Jane Jacobs in the 1960s. It refers to the natural, social surveillance from surrounding buildings and passers-by that makes a public space feel alive and safe.
The article identifies several common design failures that breed insecurity:
- Hostile Architecture: Anonymous office buildings, locked doorways, and few ground-floor windows create dead zones where no one is looking out.
- Poor Sightlines: Bus stops with advertising panels that block the view, or high fences around parks, make it impossible to see who is nearby.
- Bad Lighting: This isn't just about too little light; lighting that is too intense can be just as bad, creating deep, dark shadows where someone could hide.
- Obscured Areas: Overgrown bushes or tunnels without emergency exits create points of high anxiety.
- Single-Use Spaces: A renovated square in Utrecht, fitted with a skate park and CrossFit equipment, was cited as a prime example. As the urbanist notes, "it really seems as if half the population is simply forgotten".
- (Anachronistic or) Outdated Materials: Stone and cobblestone pavements, while aesthetically pleasing, create accessibility issues for women in heeled shoes. The irregular surface forces the heel to wedge between gaps, risking twisted ankles or broken heels. Unlike smooth surfaces, stone floors require constant attention while walking, making the experience tiring and uncomfortable. This architectural choice, though traditional, inadvertently excludes those who wear formal footwear, particularly women in professional or elegant settings.
How to Design for "Eyes on the Street"
Frustratingly, this knowledge isn't new. As one academic notes, urban planners were "having the same conversations forty years ago". It begs the question: why has so little changed?
The solutions proposed are not complex or expensive. They are simply centred on encouraging human presence:
- Placing more bars or kiosks that stay open late.
- Encouraging shops with windows that remain lit in the evening.
- Positioning tram stops near busy cafes, with open-plan shelters that don't block the view.
- Designing parks with well-lit paths and placing benches or sports facilities in raised, visible positions rather than hidden corners
- Choose smooth, even surfaces that accommodate all footwear types and mobility needs.
- Select vegetation that maintains clear sightlines: tall trees with high canopies, hedges kept below waist height, and open lawn areas that eliminate hiding spots while preserving green space.
Lessons from Europe
Whilst the Netherlands has been slow to act, other European cities are already showing how it's done.
- Vienna has had an office for gender-inclusive urban planning for 25 years.
- In Barcelona, women can request extra bus stops along the route after 10 PM to be dropped off closer to their homes.
- In Karlskoga, Sweden, authorities prioritise clearing snow from pavements (used more by women) before clearing roads.
These examples prove that a safer city for women is simply a safer city for everyone.
Experts insist this approach must become "a stable and mandatory part" of all urban development. It should be, they argue, "an essential requirement in tenders for newly built neighbourhoods".
This isn't just about changing infrastructure; it's about changing a mindset. We must move beyond reactive security and finally start designing public spaces that feel safe, by ensuring there are always eyes on the street.
Valeria Lorenzelli
Source: The analysis and expert opinions in this article are drawn from Steden zijn gebouwd door de ‘oorspronkelijke planner: de man’. Dat moet anders. (Cities were built by the 'original planner: the man'. That has to change.) by Julia Vié, originally published in Nrc (Netherlands), 10th October 2025.
A Growing Threat to Community Safety
A new position paper from Europol, the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, has highlighted the severe and growing threat of caller ID spoofing, calling it a primary driver of financial fraud and social engineering scams across Europe.
The report warns that this technique, which involves manipulating caller information to appear trustworthy, accounts for approximately 64% of reported fraud cases and results in an estimated annual global loss of €850 million.
For community safety advocates and neighbourhood watch groups, this report serves as a critical alert on a crime that directly targets citizens in their homes.
What is Caller ID Spoofing?
Caller ID spoofing is a technique where criminals deliberately manipulate the information displayed on a recipient's phone. By using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services or specialised apps, they can make a call or text appear to come from a trusted source, such as a bank, a government agency (like the tax office or police), a utility company, or even a family member.
The goal is to exploit trust. Criminals use this guise to:
- Trick recipients into revealing sensitive personal information.
- Persuade victims to make fraudulent payments or initiate money transfers.
- Conduct tech support scams, convincing victims of non-existent computer problems to gain remote access or demand payment.
- Execute dangerous harassment tactics like "swatting," where they falsely report a major emergency at a victim's address.
A Cross-Border Challenge
According to Europol, the current situation is "untenable". The technology makes spoofing easy and cheap to perpetrate, but exceptionally difficult for Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) to investigate.
Organised criminal networks intentionally operate from different countries to launch their attacks, creating "safe havens" that hinder investigations. These groups have even industrialised their methods, offering "spoofing-as-a-service" platforms that lower the barrier for other criminals to commit these crimes.
A Europol survey across 23 countries revealed significant challenges, including a lack of suitable regulatory frameworks and insufficient collaboration between LEAs and telecommunication operators.
Europol's Call to Action
To combat this, Europol is urging a unified, multi-faceted approach to make spoofing more complex and costly for criminals. The agency’s strategic objectives include:
- Harmonisation of Technical Standards: Creating unified EU-wide technical standards to trace fraudulent calls (traceback) and better distinguish legitimate international calls from spoofed ones.
- Enhanced Cross-Border Collaboration: Fostering a coordinated ecosystem between LEAs, industry, and regulators to enable rapid information sharing and enforcement.
- Regulatory Convergence: Aligning national laws to provide regulatory clarity and mandate service providers to implement robust validation mechanisms to block illegitimate traffic.
What This Means for Community Safety
Whilst high-level policy and technical standards are essential, public awareness remains the first and most powerful line of defence.
As criminals increasingly use technology to bypass traditional security, an informed and vigilant community is vital. The core mission of neighbourhood watch schemes—fostering social cohesion and promoting proactive crime prevention—is central to mitigating these modern threats.
Citizens must be educated to adopt a "zero-trust" approach to unsolicited calls, regardless of who the caller ID claims to be. The key advice remains:
- Be sceptical: If a call from a "trusted" source asks for sensitive information or money, hang up.
- Verify independently: Call the organisation back using a phone number you have sourced yourself from their official website or your own documents.
- Report: Report suspicious calls to the police and your telecommunications provider to help authorities and operators identify fraudulent patterns.
Europol's report is a clear signal that modern crime prevention must combinate high-tech solutions with foundational community awareness.
The Gallup "Global Safety Report 2025" reveals a striking paradox: in an era experiencing more armed conflicts than at any time since the Second World War, the global population's personal perception of safety has never been higher.
This report measures public confidence using the benchmark question for the UN's Sustainable Development Goal 16: "Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city or area where you live?". The findings offer a complex and nuanced picture, especially for Europe.
A world that feels safer
Globally, 2024 marked a historic milestone. 73 per cent of adults worldwide said they feel safe walking alone at night. This is the highest figure recorded since Gallup began tracking the metric in 2006.
This positive trend is visible across several regions. The Asia-Pacific (79 per cent) and Western Europe (77 per cent) lead the rankings for perceived safety. Even Latin America and the Caribbean, while remaining among the least safe regions, reached the 50 per cent threshold for the first time.
At a national level, Singapore leads the world, with 98 per cent of residents feeling safe. At the other end of the spectrum is South Africa, where just 33 per cent of adults feel safe.
However, the report shows a clear fracture in this perception: the gender gap. Globally, there is an 11-percentage-point gap between men who feel safe (78 per cent) and women (67 per cent). This disparity, the report demonstrates, is particularly stark in the world's wealthiest regions.
Focus on Europe – a dark mirror for women's safety
Western Europe shines in the general rankings. With a 77 per cent regional score for perceived safety, it has matched or set new records. Countries like Norway (91 per cent), Denmark (89 per cent), Finland (88 per cent), and Switzerland (88 per cent) are among the safest in the world.
And yet, the Gallup report provides a critical insight: Europe has a systemic problem with women's perceived safety.
The report highlights that the largest gender gaps are found almost exclusively in "high-income economies". It explicitly states that the European Union is "overrepresented" in the list of the 10 countries with the largest gaps.
Five of the ten countries with the widest gender gap globally are EU members:
- Italy: Presents a 32-point gap. While 76 per cent of men feel safe, only 44 per cent of women do.
- Malta: A 29-point gap (85 per cent of men vs 56 per cent of women).
- Greece: A 26-point gap (77 per cent of men vs 51 per cent of women).
- Cyprus: A 26-point gap (85 per cent of men vs 59 per cent of women).
- The Netherlands: A 26-point gap (95 per cent of men vs 69 per cent of women).
The case of Italy is particularly striking. The 44 per cent of women who feel safe is not only the lowest figure in the European Union, but it is also the lowest figure for Italian women in more than a decade.
To put this figure into perspective, the Gallup report makes a stark comparison: the level of safety perceived by women in Italy (44 per cent) is on par with that of women in Uganda (44 per cent). In the same country, the safety perception of Italian men (76 per cent) is similar to that of men in Germany (78 per cent).
The 2025 Gallup report, while celebrating global progress, serves as a strong warning for Europe. It demonstrates that economic progress and strong institutions, by themselves, do not "eliminate inequality in how safe people—particularly women—feel in their daily lives". In a continent that perceives itself as a beacon of safety, the data shows this safety remains a profoundly unequal experience—a privilege not yet extended to all its citizens.
In an era marked by growing distrust of institutions and a widespread sense of insecurity, Neighbourhood Watch schemes have become an increasingly common feature in many European cities. Born with the goal of increasing safety through active citizen participation, these groups often find themselves at a crucial crossroads. They can evolve into powerful tools of social cohesion or, conversely, unintentionally become catalysts for populist drifts, fuelling division and fear.
Understanding this dynamic is essential for anyone who cares about both security and the health of the democratic fabric.
A Fertile Ground for Populism
The correlation between populism and Neighbourhood Watch is no coincidence; the former can create the ideal conditions for the latter to emerge. Populism, especially in its right-wing form, thrives on a precise narrative: that of honest, hardworking "people" betrayed by corrupt, distant "elites" who are incapable of protecting them from threats like crime and decay. In this view, the state is portrayed as inefficient, weak, or even complicit.
This rhetoric undermines trust in traditional institutions, such as the police and the judiciary, which are often depicted as being too "soft" or lacking resources. It is in this void of trust that the populist call for direct action takes hold. Feeling abandoned, citizens are urged to "take back control" of their own security. A Neighbourhood Watch scheme can thus become the most concrete manifestation of this impulse: an act of self-organisation that bypasses institutions and asserts the sovereignty of the local community.
Furthermore, the populist tendency to identify a scapegoat—the immigrant, the minority, the "other"—provides these groups with a tangible enemy. The fear of an external threat acts as a unifying force, pushing residents to unite not just for something (security) but also against someone.
The Boomerang Effect
While populism fosters the birth of these groups, it is equally true that the groups themselves can become a powerful vehicle for populist ideas to take root. This "boomerang effect" manifests in several ways:
- The very existence of the group and its actions (a report, a presumed thwarted burglary) become living proof of the state's failure. The neighbourhood chat group turns into a sounding board where anxiety is amplified and the narrative of institutional inefficiency finds continuous confirmation.
- Within the group, a strong sense of belonging based on exclusion is strengthened. The "us" are the respectable residents defending the territory; the "them" is anyone perceived as an external threat. This shifts the focus from crime vigilance to social surveillance, where even non-illegal but simply "different" behaviours can become an object of suspicion. This mechanism generates an exclusive "bonding social capital" that strengthens internal ties but builds walls against outsiders.
- Neighbourhood Watch groups can easily become a political incubator, a training ground for local leaders who, gaining visibility and consensus on security issues, find an ideal platform for a future political career, often aligned with populist parties.
- The issue of security ceases to be a complex social problem and becomes a simple moral battle between "good" and "evil." This fuels the demand for simplistic and punitive solutions, a cornerstone of populist rhetoric.
Towards an Inclusive and Democratic Model
Is it inevitable then that a Neighbourhood Watch scheme will slide towards populism? Absolutely not. It is possible to design and manage these groups in a way that makes them a bulwark against polarisation and a driver of genuine cohesion. The key is a paradigm shift: moving from a fortress mentality to a town square mentality, from defence to inclusion. This requires the adoption of some fundamental principles.
- Partner with institutions. The group should not be born as an antagonist to institutions but as their partner. Formal agreements with local, regional, or national authorities are crucial for defining roles and boundaries. The regular presence of a police liaison officer at meetings and adequate training on the legal limits of citizens' actions can transform distrust into collaboration and prevent vigilante behaviour.
- Embrace inclusion. A healthy group must reflect the neighbourhood's actual composition. A proactive effort is needed to include residents of every nationality, culture, and social background. Multilingual communication, the involvement of migrant associations, and horizontal, rotating leadership are effective antidotes against the creation of an exclusive "us."
- Focus on community. The group's energy should be channelled not just towards surveillance but especially towards improving the quality of life. "Situational" prevention—like advocating for better lighting or the redevelopment of a park—increases real and perceived safety without fuelling a climate of suspicion. Initiatives such as neighbourhood parties, collective clean-ups of green spaces, or the creation of urban gardens build the kind of "bridging social capital" that unites people rather than dividing them.
- Communicate responsibly. Populism feeds on moral panic. To counter this, internal communication within the group must be rigorous. It is crucial to rely on official crime data provided by authorities rather than anecdotes and hearsay. A strict rule should be established against the spread of unverified news, and language should be adopted that talks about problematic "behaviours," not categories of "people."
A Choice to Make
Neighbourhood Watch is not inherently "good" or "bad." It is a tool, and like any tool, its impact depends on how it is used. If left at the mercy of fear and distrust, it can easily become a weapon in the hands of populist propaganda, eroding social cohesion and undermining the principles of the rule of law.
If, however, it is built on solid foundations of collaboration, inclusivity, and active community care, it can transform into an extraordinary exercise in active citizenship. A healthy Neighbourhood Watch doesn't build higher walls; it builds longer tables. It is not measured by the number of "enemies" it identifies, but by the number of neighbours it brings together. Ultimately, the choice between being a fortress and an open town square rests with the community itself.
As the European Neighbourhood Watch Association (EUNWA), we are pleased to present our new report: "Searching for Missing Persons in Europe: A Guide to National Systems and Cooperation Models." We have designed this document as a practical guide for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and third-sector organisations, offering a clear and detailed comparison of the different alert and search systems currently active across the continent.
In the report, we map the considerable diversity of national approaches, from strongly state-led systems to models that rely heavily on the professionalism of volunteers. This guide provides professionals with a valuable tool to understand this complex landscape and identify effective practices.
The Crucial Role of Citizen Participation
A central finding of our research is the confirmation of the crucial role that citizens already play in supporting search operations. In the guide, we analyse several successful models of collaboration already active in Europe, demonstrating that public engagement is a key factor for success. These models range from community apps for vulnerable groups to highly professionalised volunteer search teams and digital mobilisation platforms that use social media to spread alerts.
Our Hypothesis for the Future: Extending the Search Network with Neighbourhood Watch
Building on this analysis of successful citizen participation, in our report we explore a working hypothesis for the future. We suggest that the formal involvement of established Neighbourhood Watch networks as official channels for disseminating alerts could significantly extend the reach and effectiveness of the search network.
The model we propose would leverage these trusted, geographically-focused community structures to act as trained "eyes and ears," complementing the work of law enforcement and specialised teams. We therefore conclude the report by inviting stakeholders to consider this framework as a basis for pilot projects, aimed at testing and adapting this promising approach to different national contexts.
This report is a tool we have designed for professionals working in the field of public safety and community engagement. It provides a comprehensive overview and a forward-looking perspective on how to build more resilient and collaborative communities.
The full report is available for free download.
Click here to download the guide: "Searching for Missing Persons in Europe"
In a contemporary Europe marked by profound transformations, the emergence and proliferation of "patriotic patrols" and vigilante movements present a phenomenon deserving of the highest attention. To provide a thorough understanding of this challenge, the European Neighbourhood Watch Association (EUNWA) has today released its comprehensive new research paper, "Vigilantism, Nationalism and the Rule of Law in Contemporary Europe". The study moves beyond surface-level observations to offer a multi-dimensional analysis of the contextual drivers, participant demographics, operational structures, and tangible impacts of these group.The research argues that while these groups often manifest in localized actions, they are embedded within broader socio-political contexts that challenge the very foundations of liberal democracy. They represent a pressing challenge not only to social cohesion but also to the rule of law itself. Their activities can erode the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force, incite hatred against minorities, deepen social polarization, and delegitimize democratic institution.
The report identifies a complex interplay of factors fuelling the rise of these movements. It points to deep-seated socio-economic anxieties and resentments stemming from periods of economic crisis and growing inequality. These insecurities are often compounded by heightened public concerns regarding security and migration, particularly following the 2015-2016 influx and high-profile terrorist attacks, which created fertile ground for narratives linking immigration to threat. This environment is further shaped by a palpable crisis of trust in traditional institutions, including governments, mainstream media, and even the European Union, which allows "anti-system" narratives to flourish. These groups leverage these anxieties, framing them within potent ideologies of nationalism, nativism, and right-wing populism to champion a return to perceived "native" values and defend against so-called external and internal threats.
EUNWA's research dismantles simplistic stereotypes of the participants, revealing a diverse landscape of individuals drawn to these movements. Far from a monolithic bloc, the participants range from digitally-savvy youth activists, such as those in France's "Génération Identitaire," to middle-aged blue-collar workers in deindustrialized areas—so-called "geographies of frustration"—who might join patrols like Finland's "Soldiers of Odin". The study also identifies a strain of "senior patriotism" among older adherents closer to traditional politics, as seen with supporters of "Britain First" in the UK. The unifying element, the paper suggests, is often not a rigid ideology but a shared "fear of decline".
Delving into their operations, the report emphasizes that tracking financial flows is critical to understanding a movement's maturity and resilience. The ability to manage resources and raise funds marks the transition from fleeting online anger to an enduring organizational presence. Furthermore, financial trails often uncover international networks and support systems that are not apparent from street-level actions alone.
While precisely attributing violent incidents solely to these informal groups is challenging, the research points to a clear correlation between their presence and a rise in hate crimes and public disorder. An analysis of hate crime data shows that countries with a documented history of structured patrol groups, such as Germany with its Bürgerwehren linked to PEGIDA, tend to report higher incidences of physical assaults within their hate crime statistics.
Faced with this phenomenon, institutional responses across Europe have been varied, creating a "regulatory patchwork". Some states, like France and Greece, have adopted repressive approaches, formally dissolving groups like "Génération Identitaire" and "Golden Dawn". Others, such as Germany and Finland, have favoured discreet surveillance and the application of specific laws against paramilitary activities and hate speech. In contrast, countries like Poland and Hungary have shown forms of indirect tolerance or even support where the groups' narratives aligned with government agendas.
However, the EUNWA report concludes by arguing that suppression alone is unlikely to succeed if the underlying anxieties are not addressed through legitimate, democratic means. The proposed alternative to illegal vigilantism is to strengthen the democratic state's capacity to provide security through structured "Participatory Vigilance," or Neighbourhood Watch schemes. Unlike illegal patrols, these programs operate under strict rules and in close partnership with law enforcement. Their role is based on passive observation and qualified reporting through official channels, with an absolute prohibition on carrying out patrols, searches, or using weapons.
The report outlines five pillars for a safe and effective European model: a clear legal framework defining what volunteers can and cannot do; mandatory accreditation and training; the use of official, secure technology for reporting; inclusive governance that reflects community diversity; and independent monitoring to ensure accountability.
"The answer to the shadow of vigilantism is not more closure, but more democracy, more justice, and more cohesion," the report concludes. By channelling citizens' legitimate desire for security into a regulated and constructive framework, it is possible to strengthen the social fabric and reaffirm the core values upon which democratic Europe is based.
The EUNWA Board – July 2025
More...
In today's digital age, communities rely heavily on online communication platforms to stay informed and connected. From neighbourhood watch groups to local forums, these tools are vital for safety, support, and social cohesion. However, they also face significant challenges: informational noise and social anxiety. Understanding and addressing these issues is essential for fostering safer, more inclusive, and resilient communities.
Despite good intentions, online community spaces often become cluttered with irrelevant or false information—what experts call informational noise. For example, during a minor flood, false rumours might spread about dam failures or resource shortages, creating unnecessary panic among residents. In some cases, unverified posts about crime spikes can lead neighbours to overreact, evacuating homes or avoiding public spaces without concrete reasons.
This clutter makes it difficult for residents to identify trustworthy updates and increases confusion and mistrust. Moreover, repeated exposure to alarming or unverified news can heighten social anxiety—feelings of fear, helplessness, and suspicion toward neighbours and authorities. For instance, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, false claims about dangerous mutations or vaccine side effects circulated widely on social platforms, fuelling fear and scepticism.
Trust is the foundation of effective community life. When residents doubt the reliability of information or fear social backlash, they may withdraw from participation—avoiding local events, hesitating to report issues, or spreading misinformation unknowingly. This erosion of social trust weakens community bonds and hampers coordinated responses to emergencies or everyday safety concerns.
Research indicates that social anxiety and information overload don't just cause personal discomfort—they jeopardize overall safety. During natural disasters like the 2021 floods in Germany and Belgium, while social media helped coordinate rescue efforts, false rumours about dam breaches spread quickly, causing panic and delaying official responses.
Addressing these social challenges requires creating purpose-built community platforms that prioritize empathy, clarity, and collective involvement. Some promising approaches include:
- Verified and Clear Sources: Platforms should emphasize messages from trusted authorities—like local officials or emergency services—using verified badges or clear attributions. For example, during a local fire, official alerts with consistent branding and straightforward language help residents trust the information.
- Emotional Support Channels: Dedicated spaces where residents can express fears or seek reassurance from neighbours or mental health professionals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some neighbourhoods set up online support groups that helped residents share concerns and receive accurate advice, reducing feelings of isolation.
- Moderation and Engagement: Trained moderators can filter out false claims and guide the community towards constructive dialogue. In the UK, some neighbourhood apps like Nextdoor implemented moderation teams that actively monitored content, which helped reduce misinformation and fostered a sense of safety.
- Empathy and Inclusive Design: Messages crafted to acknowledge residents' fears without sensationalism, promoting calm and collective resilience. During extreme weather events, successful communities used empathetic messaging to inform residents about safety measures while reassuring them that help was available.
A connected neighbourhood, built on trust and verified information, can act as a buffer against external misinformation campaigns. When trusted community leaders and residents regularly share accurate updates and listen actively, it becomes much harder for false rumours to take root. For example, during a recent misinformation campaign about health risks in a European town, local community leaders scheduled town halls and used local communication channels to counteract false claims, restoring confidence.
Community safety and well-being depend on proactive policies. Investment in local communication platforms, training residents to evaluate information critically, and establishing transparent governance structures are key steps. Cities like Copenhagen have piloted community communication apps that combine verified alerts with forums for residents to discuss concerns safely and constructively, serving as models for other regions.
Reducing social anxiety and informational noise isn’t just about technology; it’s about fostering social bonds that make communities resilient. By designing communication tools rooted in trust, empathy, and participation—like verified alerts, support channels, and active moderation—communities can become safer, more connected, and better prepared to face both everyday challenges and emergencies. Building a strong social fabric ensures that citizens not only stay informed but also feel supported and confident within their neighbourhoods.
Crises such as hybrid threats, armed conflicts, natural disasters, pandemics, and economic turmoil frequently pose significant challenges to the protection of human rights. In these circumstances, states and the international community must ensure that fundamental freedoms and rights remain safeguarded—even when drastic measures become necessary.
When thinking about human rights in times of crisis, many are reminded of the saying, “Those who are drowning must save themselves.” Yet we should remember that the cornerstone here is each individual’s right to be protected by the state. So just how far or close are we to that ideal when it comes to receiving state support in critical moments? And what specific situations and crises are we talking about?
Human Rights Protection During War and Armed Conflicts
Armed conflicts pose one of the greatest threats to human rights and to adherence to humanitarian law, often involving war crimes and mass refugee flows. International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, mandates the protection of civilians and prisoners of war. However, many governments and armed groups disregard these principles, leading to large-scale rights violations. Sadly, this is still happening in the 21st century, including in Europe. There are reports of deliberate attacks on civilians, a failure to aid the wounded and sick, shortages or complete lack of first-aid supplies, and other abuses targeting the local population.
Natural Disasters and Pandemics
Natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes can force people to relocate, overwhelm healthcare systems, and cause food shortages. In such situations, human rights include ensuring people’s access to basic needs, as well as imposing on the state a duty to provide information and take effective action.
Pandemics like COVID-19 have shown how difficult it is to balance the protection of public health with individual freedoms. The restrictions on movement we experienced had a considerable impact on both economic and social rights. Human rights advocates and influential public figures have questioned whether health and the right to life should have justified such sweeping limits on freedom of movement and assembly. In many places—especially authoritarian regimes—these measures opened the door to further human rights restrictions, including unmerited tracking of personal data such as people’s habits and movements.
A Fundamental Need: The Right to Health and Healthcare
In all of the scenarios noted above, access to sustainable healthcare is an essential requirement. The right to health is a key human right protected by various international agreements, including the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as Article 111 of Latvia’s Constitution. It is the government’s responsibility to strengthen support mechanisms and ensure that people have access to medical care and medications—even in emergencies.
Adequate access to medicines and healthcare services is vital for public health. International law obligates governments to guarantee people’s access to necessary medicines, vaccines, and medical treatment, including state-funded care for vulnerable groups. But are we in Latvia really prepared to confront potential challenges?
It seems absurd that more and more people are afraid to call an ambulance for fear of a hefty bill. It is equally troubling that healthcare professionals feel underfunded and underappreciated. Although efforts have been made to explain the situation, public concern remains high. Doctors and nurses continue to complain about low pay and insufficient social protections.
During the pandemic, several countries introduced emergency measures to keep healthcare accessible for everyone. Experts, however, have debated just how well these measures worked. Providing equal treatment and equal access is no simple task, especially given many individuals’ unique circumstances. Keeping the public safe while protecting vulnerable groups—children, seniors, and those with chronic conditions who may lack financial reserves—is a complex endeavour. To do this effectively, it is not enough to rely on past experience; proactive planning for different crisis scenarios is needed.
Such crises often exacerbate existing inequalities and discrimination, limiting people’s access to work, education, and healthcare. Governments need to put support systems in place to protect those who are most at risk, since the treatment of vulnerable groups reveals how fragile society is as a whole. In Latvia, we have long discussed unequal access to goods and services, particularly in rural regions and remote areas. Lately, there has also been growing focus on pharmacy availability in both urban and rural settings, as well as on maintaining adequate reserves of essential medicines for crisis situations. Certified pharmacist Zane Dzirkale, a co-founder of the “Health Care System Resilience” think tank, addressed these issues in a recent publication.
Potential Solutions
When we talk about “the state,” we are also talking about every one of us—each playing our role and fulfilling our responsibilities. Yet recent years have shown the significant power of communities and civic organizations, including community centres and service hubs in towns and cities. We have no shortage of good practices in this realm. For instance, the Latvian Platform for Development Cooperation responded rapidly to Ukraine’s need for assistance; there are also inspiring examples of local community collaboration both in Latvia’s regions and in Riga. Support for Ukraine is ongoing, provided by the Marta Centre, the association “Tavi draugi,” and numerous other civic organizations. Crises have shown that the potential of communities is undervalued—even though the need for community engagement continues to grow.
Community strength is also reflected in the concept of community policing, where maintaining public order is not left solely to the police; residents, too, share responsibility. Community policing is built on trust, prevention, and more efficient crime reduction—rather than merely responding after the fact, the police work hand in hand with residents to solve problems at the neighbourhood level. Recall how a local resident in Latgale discovered a drone, alerted the local police unit, and set in motion a response well before the media picked up the story. This community-focused approach has proven successful elsewhere in the European Union and has become an integral part of Latvia’s State Police strategy.
Conclusions
Protecting human rights—especially the right to life and health—in times of crisis is one of the greatest challenges facing the modern world. The international community, national governments, and nongovernmental organizations must coordinate to ensure these rights remain intact, no matter how severe the crisis. Sustainable and effective healthcare policies can greatly enhance people’s living conditions and foster societal stability and resilience—offering protection for individuals’ health and lives. Equally important is the support of communities and NGOs, both in normal times and during periods of crisis.
Ilze Bērziņa
EUNWA Advisory Board, and co-founder of the think tank “Health Care System Resilience”; human rights expert, and lecturer at the Rīga Stradiņš University Faculty of Social Sciences.
References:
