Restrictive National Laws Affecting Human Rights Civil Society Organizations: A Legal Analysis

Following the attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, a new dilemma for foreign donors to human rights-related civil society organizations has arisen. In an attempt to choke off the financial networks that fund terrorism, global counterterrorism efforts, spearheaded by the United States, have led to a backlash against human rights that has increasingly taken the form of national laws designed to restrict the activities of civil society organizations (CSOs), in particular to limit foreign funding. In some cases, these laws seem to have been adopted in response to democratic social movements such as the Rose and Orange Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine respectively, as a global trend towards increasing democracy has been turned back. In other cases, they have been adopted in response to directives from international organizations like the United Nations Security Council or intergovernmental standard-setting bodies. The post-9/11 context has created an environment of potentially conflicting legal obligations and related policy choices. Providers of support for human rights-related CSOs face pressing questions of whether to operate in states that have passed such laws, and whether to comply with such restrictive laws if they do. This context has created confusion for well-intentioned states and an ideal pretext for repression for states that are eager to roll back democratic gains. This article clarifies the two most important legal questions facing donors to human rights-related CSOs: first, are national laws restricting the activities of CSOs, particularly limitations that affect funding, legal under international human rights law; and second, if such laws are illegal, what actions are donors entitled to take in response?