On 12 July 2018, the central government of the Netherlands changed its approach relating to traveller camps in the Netherlands. This change constitutes a huge political shift, as the government had previously adopted a ‘hands-off’ and ‘repressive-inclusion’ strategy, which was especially known for its infamous ‘phase-out policy’ or ‘extinction policy’ of traveller camps. This has now been replaced by a fundamental rights-proof approach that facilitates the travellers’ way of life. This article aims to uncover the various actions undertaken by international and national actors that seem to have contributed to the Dutch government’s changed stance. It looks particularly at the role played by four national actors: the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, the National Ombudsman, the Public Interest Litigation Project, and activist Roma, Sinti and travellers and their various interest groups. The article concludes that these actors’ efforts to establish political and legal change were successful as they addressed the same issue from different vantage points and through different means. That is, they all focused on the issue of the incompatibility of the phase-out policy with fundamental rights standards and relied on a variety of means available to them (such as litigation, lobbying, reporting, raising international awareness, and ensuring media coverage). By drawing some general lessons from this case study, this article aims to contribute to the existing literature on mobilizing human rights. In particular, it focuses on the (legal) activities national actors can undertake to bring about political and legal change in order to enforce the compliance of national authorities with fundamental rights standards in both law and policy.

中文翻译：

---

推动政治和法律变革：保护荷兰游客的文化认同

2018 年 7 月 12 日，荷兰中央政府改变了有关荷兰旅行者营地的方法。这一变化构成了巨大的政治转变，因为政府此前采取了“不干涉”和“压制性包容”战略，尤其以其臭名昭著的“逐步淘汰政策”或“灭绝政策”而闻名。现在，这已被一种促进旅行者生活方式的基本权利证明方法所取代。本文旨在揭示似乎促成荷兰政府改变立场的国际和国家行为者采取的各种行动。它特别着眼于四个国家行动者所发挥的作用：荷兰人权研究所、国家监察员、公共利益诉讼项目和活动家罗姆人，辛蒂和旅行者以及他们的各种兴趣团体。文章的结论是，这些参与者从不同的有利位置和通过不同的方式解决同一问题，因此他们为实现政治和法律变革所做的努力是成功的。也就是说，他们都把重点放在淘汰政策与基本权利标准不相容的问题上，依靠各种可用的手段（如诉讼、游说、报道、提高国际意识和确保媒体报道） . 通过从这个案例研究中汲取一些一般性的教训，本文旨在为现有的关于动员人权的文献做出贡献。特别是，