The world's most distinctive programme: we advocate for the fundamental reform of international legal institutions and mechanisms — and for civil society to have the same standing as governments in the spaces where international law is made and enforced. Because the institutions are often as much the problem as the rules.
Every human rights organization advocates for compliance with international law. OLJA goes further: we publicly advocate for the reform of international legal institutions — the Security Council, the Human Rights Council, treaty bodies, the ICC — when those institutions are inadequate, structurally captured, or complicit in protecting perpetrators. And we advocate for civil society to have equal standing in those institutions — not side events and back rows.
This is not a political position. It is a legal one. The evidence is clear: the Geneva Conventions were designed for inter-state warfare between uniformed armies. Modern conflicts are asymmetric, urban, technological, and increasingly waged through siege and starvation. The distinction principle — the foundational rule separating combatants from civilians — is violated daily with near-total impunity. The rules need updating.
The Security Council veto allows five permanent members to shield themselves and their allies from accountability — regardless of the gravity of violations. This is not a bug. It is a structural feature of the system that OLJA is committed to challenging and reforming.
Modernisation for asymmetric and urban warfare
Accountability reform for mass atrocity situations
Structural reform to end selective prosecution
Operationalisation beyond political failure
The four Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols (1977) govern the conduct of armed conflict. They were designed for a world of inter-state warfare between recognisable armies. Modern armed conflicts are overwhelmingly non-international, involving non-state actors, urban combat, drone warfare, cyberattacks, and economic siege. OLJA advocates for a formal revision process to close these gaps and restore the protective function of IHL.
The UN Charter grants five permanent members of the Security Council the power to veto any resolution — including those authorising humanitarian intervention or referring situations to the ICC. This power has been systematically used to prevent accountability for mass atrocities. OLJA's position on the Security Council veto is unambiguous: it should be abolished entirely. It is not a governance mechanism — it is a structural guarantee of impunity for the five states that hold it. But the veto is one symptom of a broader institutional failure. The Human Rights Council seats states that systematically violate human rights as full members. Treaty bodies issue findings that states ignore with zero legal consequence. Civil society — the constituency with the most direct knowledge of violations — is permitted minutes at the back of the room while states vote on their own compliance. OLJA advocates for the structural reform of all of these institutions, and for civil society to have formal decision-making power within them.
The International Criminal Court has prosecuted exclusively African defendants for most of its existence. This is not an accident — it reflects structural biases in referral mechanisms, the influence of the Security Council, and the non-membership of major powers including the United States, Russia, China, and India. OLJA advocates for reform of ICC jurisdiction, referral mechanisms, and enforcement powers to achieve genuinely universal application.
The R2P doctrine, adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 2005, establishes that sovereignty does not protect states from international scrutiny when they commit or permit mass atrocities. In practice, R2P has been invoked selectively and has failed in every major atrocity situation of the past two decades. OLJA advocates for the operationalisation of R2P through binding Security Council reform.
International law is made by states — in diplomatic conferences, treaty negotiations, and General Assembly sessions — without meaningful participation by the communities most affected by armed conflict, displacement, and human rights violations. OLJA advocates for structural reforms that guarantee the participation of civil society, affected communities, and indigenous peoples in international law-making processes.
This is the most ambitious and necessary programme OLJA runs. Reforming international institutions — the Security Council, the Human Rights Council, treaty bodies, the ICC — and securing equal standing for civil society in those spaces requires sustained, long-term investment in advocacy, research, and coalition-building.