Futureproofing Human Rights Symposium: Beyond Ideal Types and Taxonomies – Towards A Relational Conception of Human Rights Accountability

[Ben Grama is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University. He is part of the inter-institutional multidisciplinary iBOF project “Future-proofing human rights: Developing thicker forms of accountability”, a collaboration between the Universities of Ghent, Antwerp, Brussels, and Hasselt. His work focuses on devising a thick conception of accountability drawing on the overall research findings of the IBOF project.]

In discussions of human rights, ‘accountability’ often enters the conversation with an air of unquestioned virtue. It stands as a cornerstone concept, invoked with reverence by activists, victims of human rights violations, a wide range of justice actors, policymakers, and scholars alike. Yet this veneration merits scrutiny. What exactly do we mean when we demand ‘accountability’ for human rights violations? The term ‘accountability’ itself carries an illusion of clarity. We speak of ‘holding violators accountable’ as if the meaning, mechanisms, and normative objectives of such a process were self-evident. 

This blog introduces a collaborative effort to reimagine human rights accountability. It serves as the opening piece in a seven-part blog symposium for Opinio Juris stemming from the event ‘Futureproofing Human Rights, Developing Thicker Forms of Accountability’, organized by the Futureproofing Human Rights consortium—a collaboration between the Universities of Ghent, Antwerp, Brussels, and Hasselt. Accountability, whether understood as a process of attribution and response or as an outcome of human rights mechanisms, encompasses a spectrum of approaches, each with distinct philosophical underpinnings and practical implications. This blog proposes a relational conception of accountability that bridges process and outcome dimensions while acknowledging the situated nature of accountability practices. Our blog symposium represents one step in a broader endeavor to develop thicker notions of human rights accountability, a conversation that will continue at the Thicker Notions of Human Rights Accountabilities international conference in Brussels from 19-21 November 2025.

While positing a new ideal-type conception of human rights accountability may be appealing, it is important to acknowledge that numerous accountability mechanisms and practices already exist in diverse contexts worldwide. By ‘ideal type,’ I refer to Weber’s concept of a pure, abstract model used for comparing social phenomena—in this case, theoretical constructs that represent perfect forms of accountability that rarely exist in reality but serve as conceptual benchmarks. Attempts to evaluate these existing practices through reference to such abstract ideal types often fail to capture the complex, contingent, and culturally situated nature of accountability in practice. Many accountability processes and practices co-exist, typically because of contextual and pragmatic reasons, with ideal types (such as formal legal accountability) not always being sufficient or available. Beyond this actor-oriented and context-sensitive perspective, there is also an outcome-related reason for taking the intersection and mutually reinforcing nature of different accountability practices more seriously: diverse approaches can collectively contribute to the overarching normative objectives that legal human rights accountability also aspires to achieve.

Several critical shortcomings in conventional approaches to human rights accountability emerged from our symposium discussions. When we ignore the contextual nature of accountability mechanisms, we risk imposing inappropriate or ineffective ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions that fail to respond to local realities. When we treat accountability forums as isolated or hierarchical structures, we miss the complex ways multiple institutions interact, overlap, and sometimes compete. When we fail to critically examine whether accountability mechanisms are accountable themselves, we risk perpetuating systems that remain unaccountable to the very people they aim to serve, disconnecting accountability processes and their intended outcomes.

These problematic gaps led us to three focal points for developing a thicker notion of accountability: situated accountability, polycentric accountability, and reflexive accountability. Each of these dimensions embodies a distinct relational aspect of accountability: situated accountability examines the relational dynamics between accountability mechanisms and the social, political, and cultural contexts in which they operate; polycentric accountability explores the relationships between different accountability forums and how they interact across scales and institutional boundaries; and reflexive accountability considers the dynamic relationship between processes and outcomes through critical self-examination and adaptation.

Situated Accountability

Accountability is never neutral; it is always situated within power relations and embeds specific epistemological assumptions about whose knowledge counts and how truth is determined. Accountability processes themselves reflect particular worldviews—often those of dominant institutions and powerful actors. We must therefore recognize the situated nature of accountability practices, including their relationship to systemic injustice and their relationship to diverse rightsholders, whether victims or other actors seeking structural  change. 

This is particularly pertinent in settings where human rights accountability and transitional justice practices are utilized in contexts with ongoing conflict and/or authoritarian practices. As Jorge Peniche argues, traditional accountability frameworks often fail to address what he terms ‘grey zones in expectations of accountability.’ Rather than viewing accountability as a ‘starting point expectation,’ Jorge conceptualizes it as ‘a point of arrival’: an ongoing process that must navigate through complex political, social, and institutional environments. He identifies three contexts where accountability expectations are systematically diluted: criminal governance, state capture, and borderland securitization. In these settings, the very possibility of accountability is called into question from the outset, as states benefit from structural conditions that minimize or neutralize accountability expectations. Peniche argues we should embrace the concept of ‘grey zones’ from social sciences to better understand the systems that enable impunity, recognizing that accountability processes operate within—not separate from—these challenging contexts.

This understanding of situated accountability extends to epistemological plurality between different accountability systems. Indigenous justice systems, for instance, offer rich philosophical resources for conceptualizing responsibility that extend beyond Western legal paradigms. Valeria Ruiz-Perez and Piergiuseppe Parisi discuss how international human rights law can learn from the Nasa Indigenous Justice System in rethinking accountability. Nasa Derecho propio is a system of traditional and customary norms and practices which seeks to preserve harmony between the different spiritual and material forces of nature. Their discussion of the different cosmovisions of both Western and Indigenous approaches reveals how different ontological starting points lead to radically different conceptions of what accountability means and how it should function.

Polycentric Accountability

Existing conceptions of human rights accountability still often anticipate monolithic, state-centric approaches. However, accountability operates through a polycentric reality where multiple, overlapping centers of decision-making and authority exist simultaneously. These centers range widely in scale and formality—from international, transnational, regional, national, and localized accountability practices; from judicial institutions, to corporate accountability mechanisms, to multistakeholder initiatives, to grassroots social movements. Each represents a distinct forum where responsibility can be assigned, contested, and enforced through different means; accountability is best understood as an inherently networked phenomenon rather than a linear, hierarchical process. 

In an increasingly networked world, new technologies offer not just challenges but also conceptual models for reimagining accountability. Blockchain technology stands as a paradigmatic example of polycentricity in action—a system that functions through distributed consensus rather than hierarchical authority. Gustavo Prieto examines how blockchain’s inherent architecture, with its decentralized governance and diffused authority, provides valuable starting points for conceptualizing accountability in polycentric terms more broadly. By studying how accountability operates within blockchain systems—through distributed verification, transparent ledgers, and algorithmic enforcement—we can derive principles for understanding how polycentric accountability might function across other domains. Prieto suggests that these insights could inform new modes of public-private coordination which balance autonomy with accountability through aligning diverse interests of various actors under a shared framework of responsibility.

Even in accountability practices based on international human rights law, where human rights accountability ostensibly focuses on the vertical relationship between duty-bearers and rightsholders, the realities of polycentricity manifest. Grażyna Baranowska and Nasia Hadjigeorgiou reveal how states strategically leverage the humanitarian assistance provided by the International Red Cross movement to evade their own human rights obligations. In their reporting mechanisms, states increasingly cite the activities of the International Red Cross as evidence of fulfilling their own legal duties regarding investigations into losses of life and cases of enforced disappearances. This deliberate conflation of humanitarian assistance by non-state actors with state compliance with legal obligations effectively circumvents the state’s direct accountability to victims. This example highlights the potential risks of polycentric accountability systems, creating dysfunctional relationships between different actors, emphasizing the need for complementary approaches.

Reflexive Accountability

Reflexivity in accountability practices requires recognizing that those involved in accountability mechanisms must engage in ongoing critical self-examination regarding their assumptions, operations, and effects. Reflexivity is an actor-oriented concept that demands practitioners incorporate continuous learning, adaptation, and self-scrutiny rather than operating with rigid certainty about their own righteousness. Accountability mechanisms can adopt the characteristics of ‘learning organizations,’ where feedback loops enable systems to be questioned, challenged, and reformed based on their real-world impacts on rightsholders. Without a reflexive conception of accountability, we risk conflating accountability with enforcement, sleepwalking into an instrumental framing that positions human rights as merely the end products of accountability processes, rather than recognizing rights as the foundational means through which accountability practices derive their legitimacy and meaning. Practitioners within accountability systems should themselves operate with transparency, justification, and responsiveness, the very standards they seek to impose on others.

The relationship between accountability and enforcement is critically investigated by Yifan Jia and John Binns in their piece on the use of non-human rights tools being deployed for human rights ends: non-conviction-based forfeiture and human rights sanction regimes. These state-based enforcement measures circumvent traditional judicial safeguards with the goal of sanctioning human rights violations, raising urgent questions about who holds the enforcers themselves to account. When we equate accountability exclusively with enforcement, we risk uncritically privileging powerful institutions that can compel compliance. This highlights the need for a reflexive understanding of accountability where initiatives may check and balance each other, pointing to blind spots and limitations rather than relying on a top-down, single-venue model. This reflexive approach transforms accountability from a static concept to be implemented into a relational practice that acknowledges the ongoing interplay between processes designed to ensure accountability and the actual outcomes they produce for rightsholders.

At the heart of reflexive accountability lies the capacity to accommodate—indeed, to welcome—constructive critique. Accountability processes that silence criticism or channel participation into narrowly prescribed forms ultimately undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. The tension between institutional authority and rightsholder agency is evident in many human rights accountability mechanisms. For example, United Nations human rights treaty bodies use formalistic admissibility requirements to shut the door to otherwise legitimate complaints which use ‘offensive language.’ As Lisa Reinsberg argues in her blog on ‘thin-skinned accountability,’ this practice is designed to protect duty bearers and accountability holders from certain voices of criticism, preserving institutional legitimacy and authority through forms of censorship. Such practices that seek to actively prevent legitimate critique and uphold institutional authority are antithetical to accountability; genuine accountability requires creating spaces where rightsholders can challenge dominant narratives, question procedural choices, and contest the very framing of what constitutes justice or repair. 

Final Reflections

This blog symposium suggests developing thicker notions of human rights accountability through a situated approach based on empirical enquiry. It suggests evaluating accountability practices not against abstract ideals but through contextually sensitive assessments of how they function in specific environments, how they are experienced by different stakeholders, and how they contribute to evolving understandings of accountability. This means embracing the inherently imperfect, contested, and dynamic nature of accountability work—recognizing it as an ongoing and dynamic practice rather than an isolated, linear progression brought about by conformity to ‘oven-ready’ institutional blueprints.

When I joined the Futureproofing Human Rights project to develop a thicker notion of accountability, I originally imagined a grand canvas to be ‘filled in’ with depictions of justice, truth, memorialization, reparations, guarantees of non-repetition, and other good stuff. But accountability practices are never introduced to a blank canvas. Rather than developing a thicker conception of human rights accountability in reference to an ever-growing repository of concepts, we need new metaphors. Accountability is a conversation where different voices speak from their situated contexts and experiences; accountability is a polycentric network of overlapping and sometimes competing frameworks; accountability is a distorted reflection of itself, revealing the gaps between intentions and outcomes while demanding continuous refinement. This blog symposium should not be read as an additive process by which each blog contributes to one ideal conception of human rights accountability. Instead, it is a generative and reflexive exercise that produces new viewpoints on what accountability can be, challenging us to reimagine its very foundations across diverse contexts, and inviting those typically operating in the judicial realm to adopt a more encompassing perspective on accountability processes. 

This blog is part of a seven-part symposium which was reviewed and edited by members of the IBOF Futureproofing human rights’ team: Tine Destrooper (Ghent University), Wouter Vandenhole (Antwerp University), Ben Grama (Ghent University), and Marion Sandner (Hasselt University). I am grateful for Tine, Wouter, and Marion’s comments.