International System of Protection

“The present report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is being submitted to the Human Rights Council pursuant to Council resolution 34/18. In the report the Special Rapporteur registers alarm that some efforts to combat the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic may be failing to meet the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality. The Special Rapporteur highlights five areas of concern, showing that access to information, independent media and other free expression rights are critical to meeting the challenges of pandemic.”

In this submission to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Egypt in January 2025, Amnesty International assesses the country’s human rights framework and its implementation of previous UPR’s recommendations. “Since Egypt’s third UPR in 2019, the country has remained in the throes of a protracted human rights and impunity crisis,” the group states. Evaluating the current state of freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly on the ground, Amnesty underscores that thousands of people – journalists, activists, and protesters among them – have been arrested arbitrarily and/or faced unjust persecution, while at least 600 websites, including news, politics, and human rights platforms, have been blocked since 2017. On the occasions of rare protests, Amnesty stresses, the Egyptian authorities have resorted to unlawful force in their crackdown and mass arrests.

“In the years since 9/11, international security discourse has heightened concerns around extremism, positioning this as the key threat that States need to address in order to prevent and combat terrorism. Politically, enactment of domestic legislation curtailing extremist expressions has been internationally authorised and encouraged and in May 2016 the United Kingdom (‘UK’), spearheading a liberal State trend towards rights-restrictive approaches to extremism, announced its intention to enact legislation imposing a range of civil sanctions on those publicly expressing extremist views. But laws such as this restrict the core democratic right to freedom of expression and so must comply with the tripartite requirements for restrictions enshrined in Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) to be legitimate. Using the UK to dynamically exemplify the issues, this paper assesses the manner in which the laws curtailing extremist expressions comply with international human rights law.”

Here you will find the Syllabus for the MOOC 'Freedom of Expression in the Age of Globalization' created by Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. This course will examine the norms, institutions and forces that altogether have founded a global system of protection for freedom of expression and information. The Foundational Course will include four main segments. It will first survey the thinking of 19th century and contemporary political theorists, Judges in the early years of the twentieth century, and economists to discover why freedom of expression and information matters, and the values and principles that are established through free speech. The second will review the emergence of an international system of protection for freedom of expression, including the international and regional institutions and standards, and the role of international courts. The third and fourth class will focus on the scope of freedom of expression and on its legitimate limits. We will provide answer two key questions: What kind of speech is protected under international standards? What kind of speech may be restricted by Governments and how can it be legally restricted?

“In this briefing paper, ARTICLE 19 outlines the importance of protecting women’s freedom of expression when tackling online harassment and abuse, setting out applicable international human rights standards, and how governments must act on this issue in a freedom of expression compliant way. ARTICLE 19 hopes that this briefing paper will offer clear answers to the question of how to strike the right balance between the protection of the right to freedom of expression and the protection of women’s rights as well as robust measures that States must adopt to promote and protect both rights.”

“This series of Briefing Notes is designed to give readers an understanding of the key international legal standards that apply in the context of freedom of expression. They are aimed at an audience which does not necessarily have a deep understanding of freedom of expression issues, but they also aim to be of interest and relevance to more sophisticated freedom of expression observers and practitioners. Thus, while the Briefing Notes are designed to be broadly accessible, they also provide readers with fairly in-depth knowledge about freedom of expression issues. Each individual Briefing Note addresses a different thematic freedom of expression issue. The first, perhaps predictably, is titled Freedom of Expression as a Human Right, while the second looks at the permissible scope of restrictions on freedom of expression under international law. Several of the Briefing Notes focus on different areas of media regulation, including print, broadcast and public service media, journalists, media diversity and independent regulation. This reflects the central role media regulation plays both in terms of guaranteeing freedom of expression and in the legal frameworks found in democracies relating to freedom of expression. There are also Briefing Notes on both criminal and civil restrictions on freedom of expression, as well as on the right to information (or freedom of information) and digital rights. In addition to providing substantive guidance in the relevant thematic area, the Briefing Notes contain a number of pithy quotes from leading sources. The idea is to provide readers with quick access to ‘quotable quotes’ for possible reuse in their work. Each Note also contains a section at the end on further resources, for readers who want to probe the subject more deeply.”

In this episode of the UCI Law’s COVID-19 & Law series, Prof. Kaye draws on the report submitted by him as the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression in April 2020 termed ‘Disease Pandemics and the Freedom of Opinion and Expression’. Taking an International Human Rights Law perspective, as opposed to a domestic law perspective, he attempts to urge the listeners to think about how it is that the tools of law can be utilized even during public health crises such as the COVID-19. In particular, he engages with the following themes: 1) the threats to free speech during the pandemic, 2) how International Human Rights Law presents certain guarantees to the freedom of expression, 3) the presence of rampant disinformation, the associated responsibilities, and the interactions with the guarantees, 4) the WHO’s guidelines on risk communication, 5) the question of how rights can be thought about as well as enforced during public health crises. The episode is moderated by Hans Keirstead.

"With [a] global mandate to protect 'the free flow of ideas by word and image', UNESCO acts worldwide to advance fundamental freedoms, and to ensure that obligations are fulfilled and rights are exercised. [UNESCO works] to increase the knowledge and capacities of judiciary members on international and regional standards on freedom of expression and the safety of journalists. As a result, since 2013, more than 18,000 judicial operators and civil society representatives in Latin America, Africa and the Arab region have been trained on these issues. This toolkit on international standards for freedom of expression builds on these efforts, aiming to give a global scope to this endeavour. By reinforcing the knowledge and capacities of the judiciary, the toolkit effectively contributes to the implementation of the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, adopted by the UN Chief Executives Board in 2012 and recognised by the UN General Assembly in 2013. The Plan of Action aims to create "a free and safe environment for journalists and media workers in both conflict and non-conflict situations, with a view to strengthening peace, democracy and development worldwide". [It is hoped] that this toolkit will be a useful tool for judges, public prosecutors, judicial training institutes, academics and judicial actors at large, so that respect for freedom of expression, public access to information, and the safety of journalists become an integral part of efforts to guarantee and promote human rights in our societies."

The Guidelines aim to promote freedom of expression and information access while addressing illegal and harmful content. They call for states to apply regulation in accordance with international human rights standards and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Guidelines serve as a resource for policymakers, regulatory bodies, digital platforms, and civil society in their advocacy and accountability efforts. They will inform regulatory processes for digital platforms, leading them in an open, transparent, multistakeholder, and evidence-based manner. The Guidelines will contribute to UN-wide processes, such as the Global Digital Compact, the UN Summit of the Future, and the Code of Conduct for public information integrity.

In light of the global suppression of environmental protests through intimidation, surveillance, deprivation of liberty, violence, and even murder, these guidelines address States’ obligations under Article 3 (8) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). Compiled by Michel Forst, the first UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention, the guiding principles include: 1) Tackling the root causes of the environmental protest; 2) countering negative portrayals of environmental protesters as criminals; 3) refraining from civic space restrictions in response to civil disobedience; 4) avoiding the use of unnecessary or disproportionate measures against environmental defenders; 5) asserting that “the courts’ approach to peaceful environmental protest, including any sanctions imposed, does not contribute to the restriction of the civic space.”