Use of force by law enforcement officials, including police and correctional officers, is a highly important issue. Yet whilst the situations in which these officials use firearms, and the effects of this use, are relatively well documented and understood, this is not the case with 'less lethal' weapons and 'less lethal' force. (For the purposes of this project, less lethal force, or LLF, includes the use of restraints, empty hand techniques and less lethal weapons. The latter are weapons, such as the electric-shock Taser, pepper spray or batons, intended to subdue or incapacitate rather than cause serious harm or death). There is a recognition amongst academics and practitioners alike that this needs to change. Internationally, the current UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions has expressed the need for more research into LLF, as has the UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture. Nationally, a recent article in Forensic Science and Medical Pathology called for research into, and better reporting of, less lethal force in the UK, as did the Experts' Meeting on Taser the PI convened in 2015 with ESRC funds. The National Police Chief's Council (NPCC) and College of Policing have stressed the pressing need for research into LLF, and the Home Secretary has called for more information on police use of less lethal force and has launched a review into Use of Force Reporting (the 'Reporting Review'). At least three key topics around less lethal weapons remain under-researched, and this project will tackle all three directly. First we lack a basic understanding of when, why, on whom, and how often, less lethal weapons are used - and whether certain groups of people (those of a particular gender, ethnic minority, mental health status or geographical origin) are more or less likely to have less lethal force used on them. This project will see the PI work closely with the National Police Chief's Council, the Home Office and UK police forces, utilizing datasets previously unavailable to academic researchers to answer such questions. Such issues are also relevant internationally, as shown by recent debates on police less lethal force in countries as varied as Armenia, Hungary and New Zealand. Second, whilst these weapons are associated with saving lives, they have also been associated with serious injuries and fatalities. In the UK alone, several high profile deaths-including that of Ian Tomlinson and Jordan Begley-have occurred following police use of less lethal weapons. There are key questions around how so called less lethal force can impact the right to life, and their association with fatalities worldwide. Building on my PhD work focusing on injuries associated with Taser, this project will see the PI work with the UN Special Rapporteur to research the impact less lethal force has on the right to life in the UK and globally. Third, if it is important to attend to the situations in which force is used, it is also important to look at how such force is monitored and governed. This requires working with police and government to help understand what data on less lethal force should be gathered and analyzed, and working with the independent oversight bodies that monitor places of detention (including police custody) to ensure that they have the necessary research to enable them to document the LLF used by state authorities. The UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture has highlighted the need for research to assist them in addressing and monitoring less lethal weapons and other physical infrastructure found in places of detention. The PI will work with key decision makers on these issues; with the UK government on reporting, and with oversight bodies via the SPT and its network of over 40 national bodies.

This project aims to systematically examine human rights violations against journalists undertaken with impunity. Such violations include attacks on the life and work of journalists (e.g., direct violence; offline and online harassment; gender-based intimidation; and, psychological harm); the weaponization of the law and disinformation to silence critical media; state-led media capture to serve polarising agendas; online surveillance; and, the deliberate generation of public mistrust in journalism. As an indication of the severity of the situation, 80% of all 1448 journalist murders between 1992 and 2022 resulted in impunity, meaning that perpetrators of serious human rights violations are not held accountable (CPJ 2022). Particularly at risk of attacks with impunity are journalists covering critical public interest issues including political and corporate corruption, organised crime, human rights violations and environmental conflicts. This lack of accountability has been shown to engender a climate of fear and self-censorship amongst journalists, sometimes as the sole means of self-protection when states fail to deter or are directly complicit in attacks on journalists. In view of this perpetuated cycle of injustice, ending impunity for crimes against journalists is a priority of the international community in achieving sustainable development globally, including the promotion of peaceful, inclusive and just societies (Sustainable Development Goal 16/16.10). Problematically, critical knowledge gaps currently prevent comprehensive understanding of the underlying causes of impunity and how the phenomenon is manifest across diverse country settings, ultimately preventing effective remedial action and policy intervention. This project seeks to contribute to redressing these gaps by developing a holistic 'impunity profiler' (IP) to enable systematic mapping of civil society actors' (journalistic, legal and civil associations) experiential accounts of impunity, and practices employed to counter impunity. Based on an original conceptual, methodological and interdisciplinary approach (combining sociology, political science, journalism studies and computer science), the IP will support in-depth comparative assessment of impunity and countermeasures used across diverse country settings. It will be tested in three countries (Mexico, Indonesia and Serbia), to: (1) systematically understand the underlying political, civil and cultural causes of the societal problem of impunity for human rights violations against journalists, as an expression of state-based harm and a failure in accountable governance, and, (2) shed light on the consequences of impunity by methodically exploring how civil society communities are affected by and seek to resist impunity. Incorporating computer science methods and open data principles, the IP framework will produce a replicable method and novel data set to be translated into an online open data repository and training resource for researchers, civil society and policy actors to better assess impunity in country contexts. Participatory Action Research (PAR), as a method to incorporate perspectives of beneficiary communities, will be integral to developing an integrated approach to knowledge exchange by establishing a global Community of Practice (CoP), involving civil society, academic and policy communities, as primary collectors, holders and users of data on impunity for violations against journalists. The CoP will ensure uptake and use of the IP amongst beneficiaries and provide the project's impact platform. Impact objectives focus on building capacities, via strengthened methods of academic inquiry and civil society documentation practices, to generate higher quality public intent - or accountability-oriented - data to be utilised to empower local, regional and international advocacy and policy efforts to more effectively redress the problem of impunity for attacks on journalism.

Migration between the countries of the Global South, otherwise known as South-South migration (SSM), accounts for nearly half of all international migration, reaching almost 70% in some places. The potential of SSM to contribute to development and delivery of the SDGs is widely acknowledged but remains unrealised, largely due to existing inequalities at the global, national and local levels which determine who is (and is not) able to migrate, where to, and under which terms and conditions. These multidimensional inequalities are associated with a lack of rights for migrants and their families; difficult, expensive and sometimes dangerous journeys; and limited opportunities to access services and protection, which can, in turn, exacerbate inequalities. The challenge of ensuring that SSM reduces inequalities and contributes to delivery of the SDGs is intractable due to: - A lack of evidence about the ways in which horizontal and vertical inequalities can undermine major development investments and policies, and about the types of interventions which can overcome inequalities associated with SSM; - A failure of existing development approaches to take account of how SSM (and related policies) is/are influenced by broader economic, political and social processes (and relevant sectoral policies); - A focus on individual ODA-recipient countries rather than on dynamic effects along migration 'corridors' which connect origin and destination countries and the development implications of (two-way) flows of people, finance, trade and knowledge; - The politicisation of migration and a growing tendency to focus on migration management and border controls at the expense of equitable migration and development related outcomes; - The top-down, high-level orientation of much development policy planning which can dehumanise migrants by focusing on economic indicators and outcomes rather than experiences and well-being, broadly defined; and - A gap between policy and legal frameworks to limit inequalities associated with SSM (where these exist), and their equitable delivery / implementation in practice. The Hub is oriented towards addressing this challenge and ensuring that SSM is able to make a more equitable and effective contribution to poverty reduction, development and delivery of the SDGs, particularly SDGs 1, 5, 8 and 10. It does so by bringing together, for the first time, research and delivery partners from 12 ODA-recipient countries which constitute six SSM 'corridors' (Burkina Faso-Cote d'Ivoire, China-Ghana, Egypt-Jordan, Ethiopia-South Africa, Haiti-Brazil, Nepal-Malaysia) who will work in partnership with five UN agencies and the OECD. The Hub will deliver challenge-led programmes of research and evaluation to address inequalities associated with SSM, undertaking extensive new data collection and policy analysis, and testing interventions and solutions in a range of geographical contexts. The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) will lead the Hub's communication and dissemination work, working alongside our research partners in the Global South to develop a range of outputs for different local, national and global audiences to maximise the Hub's impact on policy and practice. The Hub builds on existing RCUK investments but also develops equitable new partnerships in order to generate novel and innovative perspectives on the intractable challenge which it seeks to address. In particular, by bringing together researchers from the Global South working across the countries making up the SSM corridors, and connecting these teams with leading migration scholars in the Global North, the Hub provides an opportunity for significant cross-learning within and between the corridors, and on SSM more generally. In so doing it offers considerable added value, strengthening capacity and capability for understanding - and responding to - the challenges associated with SSM and delivery of the SDGs.