Rethinking SDG16 Access to Justice

Authors: Ana Fierro, Tec de Monterrey

In the debate about the role of universities in promoting development, and especially in advancing the SDGs, it may be helpful to focus our attention where most help is needed: SDG 16 — peace, justice, and strong institutions. At the midpoint of the 2030 Agenda, conflicts, climate change, and political instability have converged in a “global development emergency.”^[1] Only about 12 per cent of measurable SDG targets are on track, almost half are off track, and roughly 30 per cent have stagnated or regressed since 2015.^[2] SDG 16 — peace, justice and strong institutions, is faring worse: none of its targets are on track and about 15 per cent are regressing.^[3]

Target 16.3 calls for the promotion of the rule of law and equal access for all, not just those who can afford or navigate the system. Yet, an estimated 1.5 billion people worldwide had unresolved justice problems.^[4] According to the Open Government Partnership, confusing procedures, high costs, and discrimination exclude large segments of the population from legal systems. These barriers undermine trust: when individuals perceive that legal processes are opaque and they have no voice, they disengage. As Rebecca Sandefur argued before the pandemic, access to justices faces a “crisis of exclusion.” Procedural-access-centred norms and bureaucratic burdens structurally deny justice to those most in need.^[5]

Judiciaries are also facing a crisis of legitimacy. Recent illiberal governments in Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico have portrayed judges as unelected elites and used anti‑elitist rhetoric to justify court packing, lowering retirement ages, or cutting budgets. The consequence is a vicious cycle: weak public support makes courts politically vulnerable, enabling illiberal governments to justify budget cuts, court packing, or the erosion of judicial independence.  This pattern underscores how judicial legitimacy depends on courts being perceived as relevant and reachable to ordinary people and highlights the link between access to justice and institutional resilience. Expansive decisions regarding human-rights protections and socioeconomic rights, such as Brown v. Board of Education (which declared racial segregation in U.S. public schools unconstitutional), Miranda v. Arizona (which established the requirement to inform detainees of their rights), Germany’s Lüth judgment (which affirmed that constitutional rights have a broad effect across the legal system, including private law), and India’s Kesavananda Bharati (which held that constitutional amendments cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution), are interpreted by some as welcome interventions to fill gaps that political branches have left. Others, however, argue that this activism understood as courts adopting expansive interpretations of constitutional rights and, in some cases, effectively shaping public policy beyond explicit legislative mandates — is illegitimate and invites democratic backlash. 

Peace, justice, and strong institutions are both an outcome and an enabler of sustainable development. The Global Progress Report on SDG 16 stresses that without universal access to justice, the rule of law, and accountable governance, efforts to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality, or respond to climate emergencies lose their moorings. Conversely, when justice systems are accessible and decision making is inclusive, they support better health, education, and environmental outcomes.^[6] Trusted judiciaries enforce environmental rules, address gender‑based violence, and prevent land or labour disputes from escalating into poverty. When SDG 16 stalls, violence, corruption, and distrust reverberate across all goals.

“Peace, justice, and strong institutions are both an outcome and an enabler of sustainable development. The Global Progress Report on SDG 16 stresses that without universal access to justice, the rule of law, and accountable governance, efforts to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality, or respond to climate emergencies lose their moorings. Conversely, when justice systems are accessible and decision making is inclusive, they support better health, education, and environmental outcomes.” – Ana Fierro, Tec de Monterrey

SDG 16 highlights four interlinked obstacles that affect the entire agenda. First, measurement gaps undermine accountability: many incidents of violence, abuse, or corruption go unreported, national statistical offices often lack capacity, and SDG 16’s 12 targets and 24 indicators create a heavy reporting burden.^[7] Similar data problems plague other goals, from unrecorded care work to untracked environmental damage. Second, structural exclusion persists because legal systems are built around costly procedures that poor and marginalized groups cannot navigate, mirroring wider inequalities in education, health, and representation. Third, political backsliding allows illiberal governments to weaken courts, eroding accountability. Finally, resource and capacity deficits — underfunded courts, overburdened health systems, and weak statistical offices — limit progress. Tackling these obstacles requires open data initiatives, simplified procedures, independent institutions, and investments in human capital and digital infrastructure.

Universities can advance SDG 16 in three ways. First, research should focus on entry barriers to the justices system, helping to identify and measure them. Interdisciplinary studies of procedural complexity and language can inform people‑centred justice models that resonate in different cultures. Second, scholars can coproduce data with civil society and statistical agencies by developing surveys and case‑tracking tools that capture everyday justice problems. These collaborations can reveal patterns that official reporting often misses and aid cross‑goal analysis by benchmarking accessibility metrics. Third, academic programs should engage the public and build capacity: courses on plain‑language communication, cultural competence, and mediation can equip practitioners to serve diverse communities, while networks such as the Reach Alliance can help share innovations and counter populist narratives that delegitimize independent institutions.

The global progress reports paint a stark picture: none of the targets under SDG 16 are on track.^[8] Yet there is also an emerging consensus that peace, justice, and inclusion are the “bedrock on which all other dimensions of sustainable development rely.”^[9] By investing in data and institutional capacity, and defending the independence of the judiciary, academics and policymakers can help turn courts from merely guardians of legality to enablers of inclusion.

References

^[1] “2025 Global Progress Report on Sustainable Development Goal 16,” UNDP, OHCHR, and UNODC, 2025.  New York, Geneva, and Vienna.

^[2] “A ‘Bold New Agenda’ Is Falling Short: The Perils and Promises of SDG 16,” SDG 16 Data Initiative, 2023, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

^[3] “A Decade Lost: No Peace, Justice or Inclusion Target on Track by 2030,” SDG Knowledge Hub, 24 September 2025, United Nations.

^[4] “Justice: Access to Justice,” Open Government Partnership, 2025.  https://www.opengovpartnership.org/open-gov-guide/justice-access-to-justice/

^[5] Recca L. Sandefur, “Access to What? Daedalus 148, no. 1 (2019): 49–55. 

^[6] “2025 Global Progress Report on Sustainable Development Goal 16.”

^[7] “A ‘Bold New Agenda’ Is Falling Short: The Perils and Promises of SDG 16.”

^[8] “A ‘Bold New Agenda’ Is Falling Short: The Perils and Promises of SDG 16”; “A Decade Lost: No Peace, Justice or Inclusion Target on Track by 2030.”

^[9] “2025 Global Progress Report on Sustainable Development Goal 16.”

About the Faculty Mentor Paper Series

This paper is part of the Reach Alliance faculty reflection series, Reimagining the Future of Sustainable Development, in response to Mariana Prado’s Sustainable Development Goals: The End of Theory? Featuring contributions from leading scholars across the Reach Alliance global academic consortium, the series opens a timely dialogue on the evolving role of universities in shaping the future of sustainable development theory and practice. Developed as part of Reach’s commitment to advancing research-to-impact and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, these reflections aim to engage higher education professionals in shaping the future of the Sustainable Development Goals.