Anna Prykhodko – Reflections on Subsidiarity: Justice Accessibility in International Contexts

While my internship at Avocats sans Frontières Canada (ASFC) did not oblige me to obtain a visa, navigate a language barrier, or even leave Quebec, I still approached it with both excitement and unease. ASFC positions itself as a “non-governmental international organization that contributes to the implementation of human rights in vulnerable situations by strengthening access to justice and legal representation.” Although I have admired ASFC’s work since high school, I confess that I struggled to comprehend what this mission statement meant in practice. 

This worry was only reinforced by the fact that I would not travel abroad and engage directly with communities that ASFC works with. I feared that, like some international cooperation organizations, ASFC might unintentionally fall into paternalistic behaviors, offering unhelpful aid and insisting on solutions without understanding local realities. Would I find myself supporting an organization that, despite all its good intentions, is disconnected from the populations it aims to serve?

This question began to receive answers during my participation at the Grand rendez-vous des États généraux québécois de la solidarité internationale. Held in Montreal, this event gathered civil society organizations and activists to reflect collectively on global solidarity issues and develop a shared strategy for international cooperation and social justice. It did so through various workshops, presentations and group discussions. Initially, my task was to collect information that would assist ASFC in defining an organizational positioning on climate justice and planning COP30 engagement.

This event, however, turned into a space for candid conversations about how my colleagues approach international cooperation. One principle came up repeatedly: subsidiarity. 

Generally, subsidiarity is the idea that issues and decision making should be handled at the most local level possible, with higher authorities only intervening to provide assistance beyond local capacities. For my colleagues, this means working in close collaboration with local organizations, legal professionals and community leaders. They view their role as supporting and amplifying the work of those already embedded in the communities they aim to serve. 

ASFC’s contribution to a legal reform against hereditary slavery in Mali offers an example of subsidiarity’s benefits. This victory, in addition to external legal expertise, was primarily the result of years of engagement with local knowledge and a systemic documentation of community experiences. An important issue surrounding this victory, however, is that formal laws do not necessarily supersede local customs, especially in remote communities. While an important step in the right direction, this reform could be rendered ineffective by a lack of community cooperation.

Nonetheless, my time at ASFC suggests that subsidiarity may offer a way to bridge this gap between customary and formal law. Working with local organizations ensures that ASFC’s legal interventions are grounded in the lived experiences of the communities they aim to serve. These partners understand the cultural nuances, speak the local languages, and have presumably earned the trust of the community. As such, they are much better positioned to evaluate local needs and influence a sustainable change in mindsets, long after a law reform has been passed. 

As well, subsidiarity can render justice more accessible, especially in environments where formal legal systems are distant or mistrusted. This became evident during one of my first tasks, which consisted of creating a training program in sexual and reproductive rights for ASFC’s legal clinic partners in Mali, Benin and Burkina Faso. My work revolved around our partners’ feedback and requests, which made me aware of the gap between my understanding of how sexual and reproductive rights should be vindicated and how they can be vindicated given the local constraints.

My idea of justice didn’t always align with what survivors of sexual and reproductive rights violations wanted and needed from their legal actors and support systems. Had I or ASFC decided to ignore customary norms and on the ground needs, we’d likely offer solutions that, although theoretically sound, would’ve been socially ineffective, or even harmful. It is through subsidiarity that we engage with foreign systems in a respectful and constructive way. 

This experience taught me that subsidiarity doesn’t mean accepting harmful practices, but it does entail working with local actors to find culturally aware and realistic ways to challenge them. Subsidiarity shifts the focus from delivering justice to co-creating it, with the needs of the populations we serve at the heart of the process. 

This internship continuously reminded me a basic truth that I find easy to forget given the isolation our Faculty bathes in: law does not operate in a vacuum. It lives within a real community and is intertwined with, amongst other elements, its culture, practices, history, trauma and worldviews.

While my internship didn’t take me across borders, it challenged many assumptions and biases about human rights work.

With regard to my initial concerns, I found myself in an organization that not only strives to connect with the populations it serves, but to closely collaborate with them. In the end, ASFC reminded me that effective international human rights work isn’t always dramatic. It’s often slow, collaborative, and rooted in local realities.