The reduction in direct physical violence has been an important outcome, but parts of the Agreement have not been implemented that would address social and economic issues, for example a Bill of Rights.

There are issues around the language deployed in some parts of the Agreement’s text, where it is imprecise or aspirational, rather than including clear obligations. The consequence of this is that policies can be enacted that are not in the “spirit” of the Agreement but cannot be legally challenged. The Agreement also includes procedural reforms, which are valuable but do not guarantee just outcomes and become box ticking exercises over substantive change.

The inclusion of power sharing, or concessional arrangements in the Agreement has led to a system of government that is frequently in limbo as one side or the other deploys a veto power. Even when the institutions are operational, the power sharing system often means issues critical to progressive change get side-lined.

Whilst there are elements of the Agreement that address women’s participation, this has not resulted in action to ensure women’s participation in public life in Northern Ireland. The high profile successes for individual women do not translate to a commitment to gender equality, or to the Women, Peace and Security Agenda being delivered in Northern Ireland.

Whilst there are bodies of academic literature on civil and political rights, less practical attention has been given to social and economic areas. Many other post-conflict countries see Northern Ireland as a positive example based on the scholarly literature and framing as a success story due to the drastic reduction of violence. But the structural violence and social and economic disadvantages that communities experienced pre-conflict remain.

A fundamental aspect that drives post conflict change for women is economic empowerment. But what we see with the Agreement is an oversight in breaking the structures that are economic barriers for women and a failure to deliver the implementation of meaningful new mechanisms of inclusion. This is also an oversight at the international level, with the Women, Peace and Security agenda, for example, which has not centred economic and social rights.

Civil society remains well-embedded in communities and has a great deal of political and strategic knowledge. Civil society organisations can name the real and pressing needs of people living in post-conflict sites rather than simply framing human rights in terms of historic grievance.

Human rights remain, underfunded, voluntary, feminised and inordinately dependent on the leadership of singular individuals whose capacities are continually stretched. Institutional commitment to human rights enforcement is largely a box-ticking exercise, devoid of commitment to a transformative vision of the dignity and equality of the human person.

The pandemic has harmed everyone’s enjoyment of rights and liberties and has highlighted and reaffirmed existing structural inequalities in society. The pandemic has differentially affected women, carers, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, older persons, those experiencing poverty and deprivation, and other groups. A crisis requires a societal response, and that societal response must deliver for everyone.

• Northern Ireland should be recognised as a post-conflict context. For a just and sustainable peace to be possible in Northern Ireland, the UK Government must acknowledge the ongoing legacies and impacts of this conflict. Legislation and policies must be responsive to the needs of victims of the conflict and proactively invest in the post-conflict work needed to end the sequence of this conflict.

• A bespoke Bill of Rights is needed in Northern Ireland to address the underpinning causes of the conflict and social problems in this jurisdiction. Among the important causes of the conflict were violations of a wide range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. These include structural problems and inequalities with housing rights, employment rights and cultural rights. A Bill of Rights has strong cross-community potential. This is especially true for the types of interests protected by social and economic rights: adequate housing, access to health care, access to employment and education are rights that appeal across the traditional divide in this jurisdiction, and they also appeal to many who do not identify with the main traditions.

• Civil society work needs to be better harnessed and supported. NGOs embracing the full diversity of human rights claims, focusing on the indivisibility of rights, specifically civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, are better placed to be relevant to the emerging diversity of post-conflict rights claims. Their work should be better supported and funded.

• Organisations need to broaden their agenda and objectives, embracing the full diversity of human rights claims, and working to develop solidarity across wider civil society. Gender-mainstreaming across traditional human rights focused NGO’s, from women’s equality to LGBTIQ+ affirmation, is an essential aspect of building legitimacy within, and relationships with, contemporary equality movements.

• There is a need to think differently about what is or is not a socio-economic right in the context of a peace agreement. This analysis is important for the construction of knowledge around socio-economic rights and peace agreements and drawing key actors’ attention to socio-economic rights.