A recently released United Nations (UN) Global Progress Report on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 – promote peaceful and inclusive societies and provide access to justice for all – outlines country-level differences in the proportion of people who access dispute resolution mechanisms when experiencing a civil justice problem. The report indicates that for some countries fewer than half (46 per cent) of people experiencing a civil legal problem access a formal or informal dispute resolution channel. Conversely, in some countries, almost everyone experiencing a civil legal problem (94 per cent) accesses a formal or information dispute resolution channel for assistance.

The Global Progress Report underscores the need for more countries to report on dispute resolution access, an indicator of access to civil justice (SDG 16.3.3). More disaggregated country data is also needed on the types of disputes experienced by populations and gender gaps in access to dispute resolution mechanisms.

The 3^rd Global Progress Report also provides details on other indicators for SDG 16. The 2025 Global Progress Report on Sustainable Development Goal 16 is available online in English here: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/sdgs/2025_SDG16_Report.pdf.

A UNDP policy brief published in February examines the importance of measuring and advancing ‘people-centred’ access to justice. The focus of the brief is the indicator for UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.3.3: the “proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism”.

The brief provides insights on how SDG 16.3.3 data can be used to increase access to civil justice.

The policy brief highlights the reliance of SDG 16.3.3 on the following concepts and measures:

• People-centred experiences, measuring the experience of legal problems from the perspective of those who face them rather than the needs and views of service providers. Disaggregation by individuals’ socio-demographic characteristics (such as age, sex, migratory background, etc.) and geographical variables allows for the identification of vulnerable groups/areas.
• In-depth assessment of how people address the problems they face, both inside and outside of formal institutions or mechanisms. SDG Indicator 16.3.3. provides a mechanism to monitor public policies that enhance the functioning of formal or informal dispute resolution mechanisms (top-down policies) as well as those that empower the population (bottom-up policies).
• Insights from household surveys across the world by surveying a representative sample of the population rather than relying on administrative data. The survey questions can provide actionable data insights on 16.3.3 and can be integrated into ongoing national surveys as an additional module on access to justice.
• Cross-country comparisons on access to justice, while also allowing for country-specific dispute resolution mechanisms and reasons for not using them.

The policy brief, “From Data to Action Strengthening Civil Justice with SDG 16.3.3” is available in English here: https://www.undp.org/publications/data-action-strengthening-civil-justice-sdg-1633.

A new policy brief examines how “access to justice for all will remain elusive unless justice experts begin to evaluate and address the fiscal dimensions of the justice gap”.

The “Justice Gap and the Budget Black Hole” policy brief examines the benefits of results-based budgeting models and performance-oriented budgets for connecting budgets to substantive social justice agendas. The policy brief highlights lessons from gender budgeting, human rights budgeting, equality and well-being budgeting, and green budgeting that could be helpful for justice budgeting. In considering the role of budgets in shaping social outcomes, it is important to look beyond traditional justice services, explore empirical research on what works to meet people’s justice needs, examine which populations are underserved by current investments, and look at how other disciplines and sectors promote or deny justice. The brief urges more data on public and private investment in justice services and the return and benefits of investing in justice.

“The Justice Gap and the Budget Black Hole: Promoting Justice for All through Budget-Based Work” was prepared by Gustavo Maurino. The policy brief was commissioned by Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies.

To access the policy brief in English, please visit: https://cic.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/The-Justice-Gap-and-the-Budget-Black-Hole-2023.pdf.