Part 2 - Social and Political Challenges:
2.2 Fraying Rule of Law and Declining Civic Freedoms: Citizens and Civic Space at Risk
A new era of restricted freedoms and increased governmental control could undermine social, political and economic stability and increase the risk of geopolitical and social conflict.1 Empowered by sophisticated new technological tools in areas such as surveillance, governments and decision-makers around the world are tightening control over civil society organizations, individuals and other actors.
Over the past 10 years, multiple sources from within and outside the civil society sector have pointed to deteriorating rule of law and declining respect for basic civil and political rights at the global level.2 New regulations and restrictions are ostensibly intended to protect against increased security threats, but potentially threaten the existence of an open and free society and the stability of the environment in which businesses invest and operate.
Civil society actors have historically been integral to driving progress and innovation in the political, social and economic spheres – by advancing human rights, the rule of law and sustainable development – and they are currently at the forefront of efforts to tackle global challenges such as the migration crisis, implementing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and promoting transparent governance. Closing space for civil society reduces the chances that these challenges will be effectively addressed.
This chapter will explain the current challenges of a closing space for civic freedoms and solid rule of law, casting a light on the triggers and contextual factors that are contributing to the phenomenon. A separate focus on the implications for businesses and society at large is also provided to highlight the medium-to-long term impact of this trend and the issues at stake in the global context of a fraying rule of law.
Analysing the Closing Space for Civic Freedoms
“Closing civil society space” refers to actions by governments and others that, intentionally or otherwise, result in the prevention, limitation or eradication of civil society activities. This is something that can occur for very different reasons. In some cases repressive laws have been introduced in order to reduce dissent and silence opposing voices. In others, civil society freedoms have been unintentionally restricted as a consequence of other democratically agreed policies. This is testament to the fact that the compromise between security and liberty is still a difficult one to tread for many policy-makers. In the current context of heightened security concerns and terrorist threats, many governments have promulgated regulatory frameworks that entail greater scrutiny of all economic and societal actors – but trade-offs between security and the protection of civic freedoms have not always been managed in a balanced way, and some of these measures have had a disproportionate impact on civil society organizations in certain parts of the world.3
Closing space is difficult to quantify because restrictions are different in each country and impact each actor in different ways.4 In some countries, for example, businesses and civil society actors have different reporting requirements – for example, civil society actors may be prohibited from receiving foreign donations, while businesses are encouraged to seek foreign investment.5 However, civil society organizations, media and corporate actors have all expressed growing concern about the closing of civic space.6 In 2015, CIVICUS found serious threats to one or more civic freedoms – including the freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression – in 109 countries, up from 96 in 2014.7 Restrictions on press freedom are intensifying around the world, with a range of methods from physical violence to legal intimidation to new laws criminalizing speech being widely used by a number of actors to undermine freedom of expression and free flow of information.8
The trend is accelerating and expanding globally, to encompass countries that have traditionally been open and inclusive. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, 3.2 billion people live in countries where the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly are repressed or closed, with only nine countries out of the 104 analysed globally being rated as open in terms of enjoyment of rights and adherence to the rule of law (Figure 2.2.1).9
Restrictions affect both organizations and individual citizens, including journalists and media outlets – particularly those who challenge economic and political elites.10 Methods of restrictions include verbal and physical actions (vilification of civil society groups,11 crackdowns on protest,12 violence against individual activists);13 regulatory measures (burdensome reporting requirements such as on the management of foreign funding);14 and technological intrusions (e.g. digital rights restrictions).15
Some organizations have closed down or reduced their operations as a result.16 Furthermore, in addition to human rights and advocacy organizations, academic, philanthropic and humanitarian entities, as well as journalists, have also been affected by closing civic space.17
Triggers and contextual factors
Factors behind the closing space for civil society vary per region, though Table 2.2.1 summarizes some common dynamics. In some cases, security concerns, protectionism and the changing global aid landscape have been used as reasons for reducing dissent. In other cases, restrictions on freedom have been unintended byproducts of well-intentioned security packages. While it is possible to try to distinguish between the trend in authoritarian or semi-authoritarian and democratic countries, worrying trends are seen even in democratic countries. Genuine problems among a subset of civil society actors – such as a lack of transparency and links to terrorism – do exist, but responses are drafted widely enough to affect reliable organizations delivering benefits to society.
Table 2.2.1: Contextual Factors
| Security concerns and counter-terrorism measures | The sensitive geopolitical context, the rise of cyberattacks and major data breaches and hacks, as well as the global insurgency of violent extremism and radicalization have led many countries to adopt security measures and counter-terrorism laws that have increased scrutiny and restrictions on the participation of societal actors, including civil society and individual citizens, sometimes including restrictions on dissenting voices.¹ |
| Rising nationalism | Civil society actors often challenge decision-makers on issues tied to security and identity, such as the response to terrorism or the refugee crisis, or the treatment of minorities. Nationalist sentiment has fuelled the closing of civic space in an attempt to reduce such criticism.² The argument against foreign funding also has nationalistic undercurrents: some non-governmental organizations that take foreign funding have been accused of being unpatriotic or anti-development.³ |
| Changing scene of development aid | Developing and emerging countries are often less dependent on foreign aid than they have been in the past, and less tolerant of external influence over the spending of aid money.⁴ Claiming ownership of development aid is an important step towards reducing aid dependence – but some governments have used it to exert control over civil society activities in their country.⁵ |
| “Market fundamentalism” | At times the push for economic growth has contributed to restricting the civic space by nurturing in certain geographical contexts the distrust and repression of civil society actors who have criticized business or foreign investors, and who have consequently been labelled “anti-development” or “anti-national interest”.⁶ |
1 Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014, p. 9; Greenslade 2011; OHCHR 2014b.
2 Palumbo-Liu 2016; Sokatch 2013.
3 Such accusations have been made in several countries, including India, Pakistan, and Malawi (see Doane 2016; ICNL 2016a; Jafar 2011, p. 133).
4 Green 2015.
5 Rutzen 2015, p. 7.
6 Doane 2016; Funders’ Initiative for Civil Society 2016, p. 9; United Nations Special Rapporteur 2016. In India, the Intelligence Bureau claimed, in a leaked report, that civil society prevents GDP growth by 2–3% per year.
The Role of Technology
Technological advances have expanded civic space by providing citizens and organizations with new opportunities to make their voices heard, express their grievances and demand their rights, and innovative ways to hold decision-makers to account. They offer virtual platforms for citizens to engage and mobilize on issues they care about. At the same time, ICT and other technological tools benefit individuals or groups seeking to leverage technology for the spreading of hate, misinformation and extremism, and present challenges for law enforcement and other governmental authorities attempting to monitor terrorist activity.
Technological tools are also being used to increase surveillance and control over citizens, whether for legitimate security concerns or in an attempt to eradicate criticism and opposition.18 Restricting new opportunities for democratic expression and mobilization,19 and by consequence the digitally enabled array of civil, political and economic rights (such as the right to work and education; freedom of expression)20– just as citizens have become more connected and engaged – creates a potentially explosive situation.
Implications for Citizens and Society
Closing the space for civil society not only reduces the number of actors and operations that are protecting and promoting the common good in society, but it also potentially increases the likelihood and impact of the risks, including:
- diminishing public trust in institutions;
- more resources devoted to national interests over citizens’ well-being, in a context where governments pursue specific agendas without ample prior consultation with societal actors;21
- corruption, as quantitative and qualitative studies attest to the contribution of civil society organizations in reducing illicit activities;22, 23
- polarization of views, due to misinformation or asymmetry of information across countries and societal groups;24 and
- socio-political and economic instability as discontent around governance systems that are not participatory and accountable manifests as protests.
A world with limited freedoms and closing civil space is additionally deprived of the important economic value contributed by civil society organizations. The economic importance of civil society organizations is under-researched,25 but some studies find evidence of impact that could be lost as their space to operate shrinks. Back in the 1990s, the Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-profit Sector Project quantified the non-profit sector’s economic contribution in the 22 nations examined as $1.1 trillion, with nearly 19 million full-time employees and average expenditure totalling 4.6% of the gross domestic product. These figures are likely to be larger now.26
Implications for Business
Civil society actors are increasingly looking to the private sector for support expanding their space to operate.27 The case for business leaders to promote openness is not always immediately apparent, because shrinking civil society space may not directly impact their core business in the short term. But studies show a long-term link between democratic systems and increases in GDP per capita,28 and most of the top performers in the World Bank’s Doing Business ranking are free countries (Figure 2.2.2).
Societal freedom is economically beneficial for several reasons. Data suggest it reduces corruption,29 which imposes costs on business: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts the annual cost of bribery alone at around US$1.5 to US$2 trillion, nearly 2% of global GDP, and this is only one form of corruption.30 Additionally, it is often the case that restrictions on civil society represent just the initial sign of more authoritarian systems impacting all economic and societal actors.31
Civil society helps to hold economic actors to account for respecting basic rights, promoting competition by creating a more equal playing field. Indeed, in some countries with less open societies, companies are collaborating with civil society actors to facilitate human rights compliance reporting and demonstrate compliance with international standards even if this is not required by domestic legislation. Companies operating in countries where human rights are not respected and civil society is suppressed run a potentially high reputational risk from being associated with environmental or human rights violations in supply chains or at production sites.32
Evidence shows that workforce diversity is good for business,33 implying that busineses benefit from being located in societies that value diversity. Brain drain fuelled by unstable and corrupt environments means that business loses out on the country’s top human potential.34 From a talent management perspective, it can only be good for companies to be able to freely move their human capital across countries, knowing their staff will not be held back by legal and/or cultural restrictions challenging global corporate diversity policies.35
Finally, against the backdrop of ongoing pressure on economic and societal actors to deliver on the SDGs through partnerships and cooperation, it is in the interest of corporations to promote an open space where civil society actors can thrive and cross-sectoral partnerships develop. Restrictions to the civic space risks endanger the ability of businesses to achieve their SDG targets.
How Could Business Help to Keep the Civic Space Open?
It is not always straightforward for business leaders to understand the nature of their contribution to promoting open and democratic systems. There are, however, some interesting examples of businesses promoting an inclusive civic space. Business leaders can promote space for civil society “behind the scenes”, for example through lobbying in meetings with governmental authorities. At the local level, business associations – which are also affected by closing civic space – can help to coordinate actions such as awareness raising and lobbying the government.36 In some cases, companies have assisted civil society groups by providing in-kind support, such as meeting space for activists, or indirect support, including quietly resisting discriminatory local practices.37
There are also examples of businesses publicly working against specific attempts to limit civil society activities, as illustrated by technology companies pulling out of countries over internet censorship; diamond companies speaking out against the prosecution of activists; sportswear manufacturers publicly supporting the work of human rights defenders;38 and food associations bailing out civil society leaders who had been investigating abuses in the food industry.39
Considering the complex nature of this challenge, some businesses have preferred to come together in coalitions to collectively raise their voice for the promotion of rights and freedoms in the contexts they operate. Examples include the Open for Business coalition,40 which supports LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) diversity across the world.
Increased international solidarity with affected civil society and stronger coalitions of businesses to advance and advocate for human rights promotion are concrete recommendations that have been identified by many organizations as priorities for action.41
Conclusions
Despite the global nature of closing civil society space, there is still not much awareness among businesses, decision-makers and a good part of societal actors about this worrisome pattern and the potential risks it can engender: increased social and economic instability, augmented social polarization, more fragile governance, and major detriment to basic civil and political rights that have been gainfully acquired by many countries in the past 50 years. More investment should be put to further study this phenomenon and quantify it in terms of lost economic and social opportunities. With technological innovation creating new opportunities for social inclusion and civic empowerment, time is ripe for all actors to come together and enable an open civic space by collectively taking measures and engaging technology to address this risk effectively.
Chapter 2.2 was contributed by Silvia Magnoni, World Economic Forum, and Kira Youdina, World Economic Forum.
References
ACT Alliance and CIDSE. 2014. Space for Civil Society: How to Protect and Expand an Enabling Environment. Geneva and Brussels: ACT Alliance and CIDSE. https://www.cordaid.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/06/SpaceForCivilSociety.pdf
adidas Group. 2016. “The adidas group and human rights defenders”. http://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/f0/c5/f0c582a9-506d-4b12-85cf-bd4584f68574/adidas_group_and_human_rights_defenders_2016.pdf
Article 19. 2015. “Statement: Malaysia: Blocking websites to prevent protest violates international law”. Article 19, 27 August 2015. https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38089/en/malaysia:-blocking-websites-to-prevent-protest-violates-international-law
Assis, C. 2015. “Salesforce.com bans travel to Indiana to protest ‘religious freedom’ bill”. MarketWatch, 26 March 2015. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/salesforcecom-bans-travel-to-indiana-to-protest-religious-freedom-bill-2015-03-26
Bequelin, N. 2014. “The Price of China’s Uighur repression: Jailing of Ilham Tohti will radicalize more Uighurs”. The New York Times OpEd, 25 September 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/opinion/nicholas-bequelin-china-jailing-of-ilham-tohti-will-radicalize-more-uighurs.html https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/why-space-civic-engagement-shrinking
Boon, J. 2015. “Pakistan shuts down Save the Children offices in Islamabad”. The Guardian, 12 June 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/12/pakistan-shuts-down-save-the-children-offices-in-islamabad
CAF (Charities Aid Foundation). 2016. Beyond Integrity. https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2016-publications/beyond-integrity-report
Carothers, T. and S. Brechenmacher. 2014. Closing Space: Democracy and Human Rights Support under Fire. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/closing_space.pdf http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack
CIVICUS. 2016a. State of Civil Society Report 2016. CIVICUS. http://www.civicus.org/images/documents/SOCS2016/summaries/SoCS-full-review.pdf
———. 2016b. State of Civil Society Report 2016: Executive Summary. CIVICUS. http://www.civicus.org/images/documents/SOCS2016/summaries/State-of-Civil-Society-Report-2016_Exec-Summary.pdf . Indexes can also be found in USAID’s CSO Sustainability Indexes for Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Europe and Eurasia, and Middle East and North Africa.
———. 2016c. SOCS 2016 Year in Review: Civic Space – Rights in Retreat, Civil Society Fighting Back. CIVICUS. http://www.civicus.org/documents/reports-and-publications/SOCS/2016/summaries/YIR_Civic-Space.pdf
CIVICUS Monitor. 2016. Findings Report. CIVICUS. October 2016. http://www.civicus.org/images/CIVICUSMonitorFindingsReportOctober2016.pdf
De Lombaerde, P. and L. J. Garay. 2006. “New regionalism in Latin America and the role of the US”. OBREAU/EULARO Background Paper 2006. http://www19.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2009/03385.pdf
Dimant, E., T. Krieger, and D. Meierrieks. 2013. “Corruption, migration and the brain drain”. Anti-Corruption Research Network, 5 September 2013. http://corruptionresearchnetwork.org/resources/frontpage-articles/corruption-migration-and-the-brain-drain
Doane, D. 2016. “The Indian government has shut the door on NGOs”. The Guardian, 7 September 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/sep/07/the-indian-government-has-shut-the-door-on-ngos
The Economist. 2014. “Donors: Keep out”. The Economist, 13 September 2014. http://www.economist.com/news/international/21616969-more-and-more-autocrats-are-stifling-criticism-barring-non-governmental-organisations.
———. 2016. “Free speech under attack: Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out”. The Economist, 4 June 2016. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack
Enjolras, B. 2015. “Measuring the impact of the third sector: From concept to metrics”. TSI Working Paper No. 5, Seventh Framework Programme (grant agreement 613034), European Union. Brussels: Third Sector Impact.
Florini, A. M. and P. J. Simmons. 2000. “What the world needs now?” In The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society, Ann M. Florini, ed. Tokyo and Washington, DC: Japan Center for International Exchange and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pp.1–15.
Forero, J. 2016. “Venezuelans, facing food shortages, rally behind vilified conglomerate”. The Wall Street Journal, 3 June 2016. http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelas-biggest-private-company-fights-for-survival-1464964360
Funders’ Initiative for Civil Society. 2016. Challenging the Closing Space for Civil Society: A Practical Starting Point for Funders. May 2016. https://ihrfg.org/sites/default/files/ClosingSpaceReport_May2016_DigitalVersion.pdf
Griffin, C. 2016. “How businesses are standing up for LGBT rights”. World Economic Forum Agenda. Blogpost. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/how-businesses-are-standing-up-for-lgbt-rights
The Global NPO Coalition on FATF. No date. Concerns. TEDx talk. http://fatfplatform.org/civil-society-concerns/
Green, D. 2015. “5 trends that explain why civil society space is under assault around the world”. From Poverty to Power: How Active Citizens and Effectives States Can Change the World. https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/5-trends-that-explain-why-civil-society-space-is-under-assault-around-the-world/
Green, S. N. 2016. “Adapt or perish: The new normal for civil society”. OpenDemocracy, 4 January 2016. https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/shannon-n-green/adapt-or-perish-new-normal-for-civil-society
Greenslade, R. 2011. “Ethiopia uses anti-terror laws to silence critical journalists”. The Guardian, 29 September 2011. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16709&LangID=E
Holodny, E. 2014. “Russia’s brain drain is astounding”. Business Insider UK, 2 December 2014. http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-brain-drain-putin-ukraine-crimea-2014-12?r=US&IR=T
Hungary Matters. 2015. “Amnesty yearly report notes smear campaign against NGOs in Hungary”. Politics.hu, 25 February 2015. http://www.politics.hu/20150225/amnesty-yearly-report-notes-smear-campaign-against-ngos-in-hungary/
Hunt, V., D. Layton, and S. Prince. 2015. “Why diversity matters”. McKinsey & Company. Adapted from the report Diversity Matters. http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters
ICNL (The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law). 2016a. Civic Freedom Monitor: Malawi. http://www.icnl.org/research/monitor/malawi.html
———. 2016b. Global Trends in NGO Law 7 (3). http://www.icnl.org/research/trends/Global%20Trends%20Vol.%207%20Iss.%203%20
Challenges%20to%20Development%20Organizations%20final.pdf
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2016. “Corruption: Costs and mitigating strategies”. IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/16/05. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1605.pdf
intrac for civil society. 2014. Legal Frameworks and Political Space for Non-Governmental Organisations: An Overview of Six Countries. June 2014. https://www.intrac.org/resources/legal-frameworks-political-space-non-governmental-organisations-overview-six-countries-phase-ii/
ISHR (International Service for Human Rights). 2015. “Angola: Drop charges against journalis and corporate accountability activist Rafael Marques”. ISHR, 28 April 2015. http://www.ishr.ch/news/angola-drop-charges-against-journalist-and-corporate-accountability-activist-rafael-marques
Jafar, A. 2011. Women’s NGOs in Pakistan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kerry, J. F., US Secretary of State. 2015. “Secretary’s Preface: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015”. http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper
Lazala, M. 2015. “Despite the odds: Businesses speaking out for human rights”. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Blogpost. https://business-humanrights.org/en/despite-the-odds-businesses-speaking-out-for-human-rights https://business-humanrights.org/en/despite-the-odds-businesses-speaking-out-for-human-rights https://business-humanrights.org/en/despite-the-odds-businesses-speaking-out-for-human-rights
Mavhinga, D. 2016. “Dispatches: Zimbabwe blocks internet amid police crackdown”. Human Rights Watch: Dispatches, 6 July 2016. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/06/dispatches-zimbabwe-blocks-internet-amid-police-crackdown
McCoy, J. and H. Heckel. 2001. “The emergence of a global anti-corruption norm”. International Politics 38 (1): 65–90.
Mendelson, S. E. 2015. Why Governments Target Civil Society and What Can Be Done in Response. A Report of the CSIS Human Rights Initiative. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic & International Studies. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/CivilSociety/ReportHC/67_CSIS-MendelsonGovTargetCivilSocietyNewAgenda-2.pdf
Minder, R. 2016. “Crackdowns on free speech rise across a Europe wary of terror”. The New York Times. 24 February 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/world/europe/spain-europe-protest-free-speech.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/world/europe/spain-europe-protest-free-speech.html
OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). 2014a. A Practical Guide for Civil Society: Civil Society Space and the United Nations Human Rights System. Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
———. 2014b. “UN experts urge Ethiopia to stop using anti-terrorism legislation to curb human rights”. 18 September 2014, Geneva. http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15056&LangID=E
———. 2016. “Freedom of expression and the private sector in the digital age”. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/Privatesectorinthedigitalage.aspx
Omidyar, P. 2014. “Social media: Enemy of the state or power to the people?” The Huffington Post, 27 February 2914. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pierre-omidyar/social-media-enemy-of-the_b_4867421.html
Otis, J. 2014. “Venezuela tries to suppress reports of economic upheaval”. Blogpost. Document2 https://cpj.org/x/57aa
Oxfam International. 2016. “Rich country goverments put national interests ahead of world’s poorest”. Media Reactions, 19 February 2016. https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/reactions/rich-country-governments-put-national-interests-ahead-worlds-poorest
Palumbo-Liu, D. 2016. “India’s crackdown on ‘anti-nationalism’ on campus and how it can affect universities here”. The Huffington Post, 17 February 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-palumboliu/indias-crackdown-on-anti-nationalism-on-campus-and-how-it-can-affect-universities-here_b_9251262.html
Ralchev, P. 2004. “The role of civil society in fighting corruption and organized crime in Southeast Europe”. Journal of Southeast Europe and Black Sea Studies 4 (2): 325–31.
Ramdani, N. 2011. “Algeria tried to block internet and Facebook as protest mounted”. The Telegraph, 12 February 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/8320772/Algeria-tried-to-block-internet-and-Facebook-as-protest-mounted.html
RFE/RL (RadioFreeEurope and RadioLiberty). 2016. “Kazakh journalists, activists detained and websites blocked”. RFE/RL, 21 May 2016. http://www.rferl.org/a/kazakhstan-protests/27748591.html
Roth, K. 2016. “The great civil society choke-out”. Foreign Policy, 27 January 2016. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/27/the-great-civil-society-choke-out-human-rights-democracy-india-russia-china-kenya/
Rutzen, D. 2015. “Aid barriers and the rise of philanthropic protectionism.” International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law 17 (1): 1–41.
Salamon, L. M., H. K. Anheier, R. List, S. Toepler, S. Wojciech Sokolowski, and Associates. 1999. Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies. http://ccss.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/08/Global-Civil-Society-I.pdf
SARN (Scholars at Risk Network). 2016. Universities in a Dangerous World: Defending Higher Education Communities & Values. 2016 Global Congress Report. Montreal, Canada, 8–10 June. https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SAR-2016-Global-Congress-Report.pdf
Sherwood, H. 2015. “Human rights groups face global crackdown ‘not seen in a generation’”. 26 August 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/aug/26/ngos-face-restrictions-laws-human-rights-generation
SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). 2016. “World military spending resumes upward course, says SIPRI”. SIPRI for the media, 5 April 2016. SIPRI Military Expenditure Database attests an increase in world military spending
Smedley, T. 2015. “Risks abound as companies export their pride globally”. Financial Times, 20 October 2015. https://www.ft.com/content/ddc082ba-71b2-11e5-9b9e-690fdae72044
Sokatch, D. 2013. “Anti-NGO legislation in Israel: A first step toward silencing dissent”. OpenDemocracy: Open Global Rights, 23 December 2013. https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/daniel-sokatch/anti-ngo-legislation-in-israel-first-step-toward-silencing-dissent
Sriskandarajah, D. 2016. “The business case for civic space”. BRINK 28 January 2016. http://www.brinknews.com/the-business-case-for-civic-space/
Stone, C. 2015. “Why the space for civic engagement is shrinking”. Voices 21 December 2015. Open Society Foundations. Document2 https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/why-space-civic-engagement-shrinking
Sutter, J. D. 2012. “Google reports ‘alarming’ rise in government censorship requests”. CNN, 19 June 2012. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/18/tech/web/google-transparency-report/
Themudo, N. S. 2013. “Reassessing the impact of civil society: Nonprofit sector, press freedom, and corruption”.Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 26 (1): 63–89.
Treisman, L. 2014. “Citizen empowerment: New technology gives a voice to the voiceless”. The Huffington Post, 5 September 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/loren-treisman/citizen-empowerment-new-technology-gives-a-voice-to-the-voiceless_b_5293704.html
United Nations General Assembly. 2015. Seventieth Session: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association. Rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association: Note by the Secretary-General. 4 August 2015. http://freeassembly.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/A_70_266_ENG.pdf
———. 2016. Human Rights Council, Thirty-Second Session: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Practical recommendations for the creation and maintenance of a safe and enabling environment for civil society, based on good practices and lessons learned. 11 April 2016. http://www.icnl.org/OHCHR%20report.pdf
United Nations Special Rapporteur. 2016. “Fundamentalism’s impact on peaceful assembly and association rights”. Human Rights Council Report June 2016. http://freeassembly.net/reports/fundamentalism/
Unmüßig, B. 2016. “Civil socity under pressure – shrinking – closing – no space”. Berlin: Heinreich Böll Foundation.
Document2UN News Centre. 2016. “UN experts urge Mexido to counter current ‘smear campaign,’ support right defenders”. UN News Centre, 6 April 2016. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53622#.V-VNdSF95D8http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53622 – .V-VNdSF95D8
Wasow, B. 2011. “Freedom and corruption: Do the data suggest that there is any stable relationship between democracy and corruption?” The Globalist: Rethinking Globalization, 17 May 2011. http://www.theglobalist.com/freedom-and-corruption/
Webb, T. 2014. “Two reasons companies need campaigning NGOs, and how they can support them when under attack”. Sustainablity = Smart Business Blogpost, 11 July 2014. http://sustainablesmartbusiness.com/2014/07/why-companies-need-campaigning-ngos-and/
Wilshaw, R. 2015. “What would loosen the roots of labour exploitation in supply chains?” Ethical Trading Initiative blogpost 27 March 2015. http://www.ethicaltrade.org/blog/what-would-loosen-roots-labour-exploitation-in-supply-chains
World Bank. 2013. “Defining Civil Society”. http://go.worldbank.org/4CE7W046K0 http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack