In her inaugural lecture, legal scholar Galina Cornelisse from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) poses a fundamental question: how can the law deliver justice to those who fall outside our field of vision - not just beyond our national borders, but also beyond our political frameworks? She argues that current legal thinking is falling short, especially when it comes to how we view the role of the judiciary.
Time for new frameworks
According to Cornelisse, it’s time for a new way of thinking. 'The law struggles profoundly with cross-border injustice, because we still reason from the perspective of the sovereign state. But power and inequality don’t stop at the border.'
She also observes a growing trend in which states use the law as an instrument to serve their own geopolitical interests. 'That in itself isn’t new, but whereas international law once served as a normative force - think of human rights, maritime law or environmental law - today the instrumental approach is gaining ground. That undermines trust in the law as a check on power.'
Politically charged questions in court
In contemporary legal cases—such as the Dutch export of F-35 components to Israel—judges are increasingly faced with complex questions around responsibility, power, and human rights. 'Politicians usually respond by saying that judges should not take the place of lawmakers or the executive. That’s also why the Dutch government filed an appeal against the court ruling on the F-35 exports to Israel. But if you look closely at cases like these, you see that it is actually the government itself that openly invites the judiciary to take a political stance.'
Who gets to decide whose rights count?
Cornelisse sees a growing divide in how human rights are applied to "us" versus ‘the other’. 'A refugee dying in the forests of Belarus or a Palestinian killed under occupation is not acknowledged as a legal subject, but mainly seen as a humanitarian concern.' That difference, she says, is increasingly laid bare in political discourse. 'Just look at a minister like Agema, who referred to the killing of ambulance workers in Gaza as an accident - without facing serious political backlash.'
The growing gap between law and power, she argues, is deeply troubling. 'If the law ceases to function the moment it concerns "the other", what does that say about the credibility of our legal system?'
Empathy as the missing element
What’s missing from mainstream legal thinking, according to Cornelisse? Empathy. 'We still think in terms of abstract principles like justice, but forget what injustice does to people. That makes the law blind to the inequality that arises when the interests of wealthy states or corporations outweigh the suffering of people elsewhere.'
She sees this blind spot reflected in international politics and legal systems - particularly in the regulation of arms trade, climate policy, and migration. 'We lack the language to talk about borderless injustice. And so we don’t take it seriously.'
Daring to think from injustice and empathy
The major political challenges of our time - economic inequality, migration, peace and security—call for a fresh perspective. 'That means letting go of entrenched concepts and theories. Many of today’s crises can be traced back to structural flaws in our political and legal systems. If we truly want change, we must dare to think from the perspective of injustice and empathy. Not as soft values, but as essential conditions for a just world—within and beyond academia.'
The inaugural lecture will take place on 22 May at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.