Wolfgang Kalek, a German lawyer and founder of the European Center for Human Rights, has spent more than two decades traveling the globe to advocate for human rights. He has engaged a wide range of figures, from whistleblowers like Edward Snowden to advocates such as the Argentine mothers of Plaza de Mayo, and he has publicly challenged figures linked to alleged abuses, including former U.S. official Donald Rumsfeld over alleged CIA torture. Kalek’s ongoing campaign, which he describes as an endless struggle, is outlined in his book Our Global Struggle for Human Rights (Roca Editorial).
– Drawing on your experience, how would you assess the current state of human rights worldwide?
Kalek notes that the world is in a broad crisis that goes beyond human rights alone. He highlights a cascade of crises—economic, environmental, health-related, and now armed conflict—which together create a difficult reality to grasp. Yet he argues these challenges did not arise by accident; they are connected, and understanding their roots is essential to addressing them.
-Does the pandemic era signify a regression in civil and human rights, with measures like house confinement and vaccination certificates?
He concedes the topic is deeply polarizing, with some denying the existence of a pandemic or subscribing to conspiracy theories. Yet he sees a clear pattern: surveillance systems, once built, tend to persist. States, he argues, rarely miss an opportunity to strengthen control. If terrorism, organized crime, or other threats recede, new justifications for surveillance emerge, and the digital backbone remains in place.
-Are we witnessing a regression in this domain?
Kalek warns of growing inequality, describing an apartheid-like dynamic in vaccination access. Nordic governments provided vaccines to their populations, while large portions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America faced scarcity or delayed access. He emphasizes that the right to health and the right to a basic standard of social and economic existence are fundamental rights that are increasingly under threat. Without concerted action to curb inequality, he suggests society risks drifting toward a dangerous fiction. A broad, inclusive consensus is needed to confront existential dangers such as pandemics and environmental disasters, yet such consensus is hampered by widening disparities. The mood he expresses is one of profound concern.
In his book, questions are raised about whether legal avenues alone can uphold human rights. What would you say to that?
He answers that no single mechanism suffices. The law provides a crucial normative margin—some context around Article 48—but law alone cannot secure protection. The work of safeguarding rights must go beyond legal frameworks. The aim is not to secure sweeping victories but to advance steady steps and to act as persistent participants in a long, ongoing struggle. The struggle, in his view, is endless and requires continuous effort from many actors.
-Looking at universal justice after years of debate in Spain and beyond, how do you view its trajectory, particularly in relation to cases like Pinochet and the International Criminal Court?
Kalek points to a mixed landscape of progress and stagnation. While some countries such as Germany, France, Sweden, and Norway move the dial forward, others in Spain and Belgium show slower momentum. He argues for a European vision of universal jurisdiction that complements the ICC, noting the Court’s limitations, such as its inability to adjudicate certain conflicts like the Syrian war. He cites Germany’s assertive actions as a model he would like echoed elsewhere on the continent.
–Do you see a double standard in universal justice?
He confirms a familiar pattern in history: the law often applies selectively, and colonial crimes have frequently escaped full accountability. He criticizes the perception that the ICC is seen as a court only for Africa, a factor that undermines its legitimacy and has kept some major players from signing on. This skepticism remains a hurdle to broader acceptance of international justice.
–Was Snowden defended? Is that an example of double standards?
The discussion turns to Snowden’s fate, who has highlighted the risks and abuses of surveillance. Kalek laments that exile in Moscow or a harsh prison sentence in the United States were the options facing him, rather than a fair, protective gesture from his own country. He notes broad support within Germany and other European nations for granting asylum, tempered by concerns about conflicts with the United States and the reality that secret services and tech surveillance align in difficult ways. Snowden and similar figures are viewed by Kalek as whistleblowers who revealed critical truths about state power—truths that carry heavy consequences for the rule of law when punished.
–There are ongoing concerns about covert espionage, including a major case in Spain involving Pegasus.
Kalek underscores that such electronic spying undermines constitutional rights, especially when it targets journalists and lawyers. He points to examples across multiple countries, including Saudi Arabia, Morocco, India, and Mexico, and questions how European states might justify employing tools originally designed for authoritarian regimes. The habit of normalizing such practices harms society and erodes the credibility of the rule of law, even though many people fail to recognize the stakes.