The Dutch rules and regulations governing the use of force by the state largely meet the standards of a democratic rule-of-law system. However, there are significant shortcomings in the areas of transparency, oversight, and legal protection for citizens. This is the conclusion of research conducted by legal scholar Vincent Cozijn into the monopoly on the use of force of the State of the Netherlands: the exclusive right to determine who may use force, when, and under what circumstances.
For his research, Cozijn mapped the entire system of powers and instructions relating to the use of force in the Netherlands, including the Caribbean parts of the Kingdom — Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba. He examined when and under which conditions the state is permitted to use force against citizens, or authorize others to do so. First, he identified the rule-of-law standards that a democratic constitutional state must satisfy. He then assessed whether Dutch regulations comply with those standards.
Legal vulnerabilities in the use of state force
According to Cozijn, the overall picture is positive. Most powers to use force are linked to objectives that are acceptable within a constitutional democracy. Nevertheless, he identifies several legal vulnerabilities. For example, there is no clear statutory framework governing the use of force during a citizen’s arrest, and it remains unclear what exact legal position the police hold when acting as the “strong arm” of the authorities.
Cozijn also argues that oversight of the use of force is insufficient. In some cases, powers to use force are not accompanied by clear operational instructions. As a result, citizens are not always able to understand when and how the government may use force. At the same time, officials authorized to use force must themselves clearly know the legal limits that apply to them.
In addition, Cozijn criticizes situations in which organizations authorized to use force both draft their own use-of-force instructions and assess for themselves whether the force used was justified. According to him, this conflicts with key rule-of-law principles such as independent oversight and the separation of powers. He also notes that comparable rules sometimes differ significantly between various instructions, which may create confusion and legal uncertainty.
Clear rules are crucial for trust in state force
The monopoly on violence is one of the most far-reaching powers of the state. Unclear or poorly supervised regulations can therefore directly affect citizens’ legal position and public trust in government.
The findings of the study provide concrete starting points for legislators and policymakers to better anchor the rules governing state force within the framework of a democratic constitutional state. Cozijn makes several recommendations, including establishing use-of-force instructions through a general administrative order rather than at lower levels of regulation, publishing all authorized means of force, and standardizing the reporting obligations for incidents involving force in order to strengthen the legal framework.
According to Cozijn, these measures could lead to greater transparency, better oversight of the use of force, and stronger legal protection for citizens in the Netherlands.
Photo: Imperial sword. Koninklijke Verzamelingen, Den Haag