Culture and Politics

Culture and Politics

Right	Breakout	Contents
Freedom of Association		The right to freedom of association is recognized by the United Nations as universal and intrinsic to every human being, encompassing an individual’s right to interact and organize with others to collectively “express, promote, pursue and defend common interests”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a key text in the history of international human rights law, states in its Article 20 that “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association” and “no one may be compelled to belong” to one, with an individual’s right to “form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests” being expanded upon in Article 23 (UN General Assembly 1948, 5-6). Freedom of association is also closely related to freedom of assembly, with the latter often being seen as falling under the umbrella of “association”. However, this freedom is not guaranteed to the same capacity in every state, with countries having their own interpretations and practices of the right within their legal code, in part due to their unique cultural and political context. This results in different protocols and limitations related to the formation of associations, with some states interpreting the right in a more restrictive manner and outlawing certain groups, placing obstacles in their creation, or impeding them through particular practices, while other states are more lenient as long as the organizations are not engaging in violent practices. While the Constitution of the United States recognizes and protects the rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to petition the government, it does not explicitly mention the right to freedom of association. However, as the report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the U.S. affirms, “The right to freedom of association is implicitly guaranteed by the first and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution, read together, which protect the rights of free speech and assembly and due process, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in a number of cases” (“Report..” 2017, 10). These cases include NAACP v. Alabama and Bates v. Little Rock (1960) in which the Supreme Court recognized the right of individuals to “associate together free from undue state interference” and that “freedom of association finds protection within the First Amendment’s free speech and assembly clauses” respectively (“Case Studies” 2023, 1). This gives citizens the ability to “associate, organize and act collectively”, forming special interests groups and allowing workers to unionize, though the latter is “regulated by several pieces of legislation at the federal, state and local levels” and laws that are “supplemented by court and tribunal decisions that establish related standards and principles” (“Report…” 2017, 10). The freedom of association is not absolute in the United States, as “forms of association that are neither ‘intimate’ nor ‘expressive’ within the meaning of First Amendment Case law may not receive constitutional protection” (“Overview of Freedom of Association” 2023). Nevertheless, even individuals who form associations for the purpose of engaging in assembly can be subject to government oversite, as the UN’s Special Rapporteur wrote that the “Supreme Court has held that the right to assemble is not absolute, allowing the authorities to impose restrictions on the time, place and manner of assembly and to require permits”, though they are “prohibited from restricting assemblies based on their content”. He further noted that the “interpretation by the Supreme Court of this right falls short of international standards, owing to the approach to restrictions on the time, place and manner of assembly” (7). Under the legal code, the Supreme Court has also held that “compelled association” can violate the Constitution: "in some circumstances, laws requiring organizations to include persons with whom they disagree on political, religious, or ideological matters can violate members’ freedom of association, particularly if those laws interfere with an organization’s message” (“Overview of Freedom of Association” 2023). Freedom of association in Niger is explicitly granted in article 9 of the country’s constitution, giving citizens the right to form unions, non-governmental organizations, and political parties with certain restrictions. During a visit to Niger to report on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Special Rapporteur Clément Nyaletsossi Voule noted: “Ordinance No. 84-06 of March 1, 1984, on the regime of associations reaffirms discrimination in the Nigerien Constitution against territorial associations and indigenous peoples, where associations of a regional or ethnic nature, specifically associations of ethnic groups, tribes and other territorial divisions are prohibited (Voule 2022, 13). He further wrote that this “censorship of certain types of associations is not in line with international standards relating to freedom of association and the obligation of democratic states to guarantee pluralistic spaces and to ‘leave no one behind’ in the implementation of sustainable development goals.” (13). The legal code in Niger does not allow for the creation of these groups, interpreting the right to freedom of association differently than in countries where it is not prohibited to form political groups along those lines. Though the Constitution of Niger does provide for the right to association, Special Rapporteur Voule emphasized that in practice it can be quite difficult to exercise in the country: “The Special Rapporteur became aware, during interviews with representatives of civil society, of the time needed to register associations and receive recognition orders, which can range from two to ten years. While these deadlines are provided for by Ordinance No. 84-06, the procedure established by Decree No. 2022-182 may accentuate the slowness of the process, making it practically impossible to create associations, in particular those whose purpose is to respond to the current political and social situation and to act accordingly.” (Voule 2022, 16) Niger’s ability to exercise the right is considerably hindered by its slowness in carrying out the registration process, creating a discrepancy between its legal code and the reality for its citizens. Iran, a theocratic state, guarantees freedom of association in its constitution, though with certain restrictions. In its 2022 Country Report on Human Rights in Iran, the U.S. Department of State stated that the Iranian Constitution protects the “establishment of political parties, professional and political associations, and Islamic and recognized religious minority organizations, as long as such groups do not violate the principles of freedom, sovereignty, national unity, or Islamic criteria, or question Islam as the basis of the country’s system of government” (“Iran” 2023, 40). Authorities have the power to regulate them and decide whether an association violates the constitution, with the Department of State’s report stating that the government limited freedom of association through “the imposition of arbitrary requirements on organizations” and broadening “arbitrarily the areas of civil society work it deemed unacceptable, to include conservation and environmental efforts” (40). While providing for the right under its legal code, the government interprets it in a more restrictive manner and heavily regulates it, prohibiting the formation of several types of groups, such as trade unions and labor organizations The non-profit organization Freedom House found that labor organizations and nongovernmental agencies that seek to address human rights violations are routinely suppressed, though “groups that focus on apolitical issues also face crackdowns” (“Freedom in the World” 2023). While the right to freedom of association is considered a universal human right, it is not applied in a standard manner. Countries often hold different standards for the freedom, with their own rules and regulations, interpretations, and practices. References: “Case Studies: Freedom of Association.” 2023. Case Categories The First Amendment Encyclopedia. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/12/freedom-of-association. “Freedom in the World 2021 Country Report: Iran.” 2021. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iran/freedom-world/2021. “Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report: Iran.” 2023. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iran/freedom-world/2023. “Iran.” 2023. U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. March 20. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/iran/. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association on His Follow-up Mission to the United States of America.” 2017 “Overview of Freedom of Association.” 2023. Constitution Annotated. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-8-1/ALDE_00013139/. UN General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, , 217 A (III), https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf Voule, Clément Nyaletsossi. 2022. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association in Niger https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G22/388/85/PDF/G2238885.pdf?OpenElement
Freedom of Association		The World Bank measures freedom of association across 156 countries using a scale ranging from 0 ( very low freedom of association) to 1(very high freedom of association). Looking at high income countries, with the exception of Israel, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Singapore, freedom of association is generally reported to be above the world median. Additionally, among wealthier countries, the World Bank data demonstrates that levels of freedom of association have remained generally fixed since 1975, when the data was first collected. In particular, the data reveals Burundi, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Vietnam, and Yemen to have very low levels of freedom of association (below 0.3). Countries with very high levels of freedom of association (above 0.8) were more numerous, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago, Switzerland, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Spain, South Africa, Slovenia, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Portugal, Peru, Papua New Guinea, Panama, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, Namibia, Mongolia, Mexico, Mauritius, Malawi, Liberia, Latvia, South Korea, Japan, Jamaica, Italy, Ireland, Honduras, Greece, Ghana, Estonia, Denmark, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Costa Rica, Canada, Benin, Belgium, Australia, and Albania. An Open Government Partnership (OGP) report reveals additional insights about freedom of association. The report surveys individuals within 78 OGP partnered countries about elements of freedom of association. Furthermore, the survey presents that approximately 25% of freedom of association issues within OGP countries are rooted in restrictive laws on foreign funding. Additionally, the survey demonstrates that OGP countries presenting challenges to freedom of association generally have not taken actions towards better protecting the right in the future. When asked to respond to “In practice, people can freely join any political organization they want”, the majority of OGP countries responded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”. Though, when asked to reply to “In practice, people can freely join any (unforbidden) political organization they want”, a large number of OGP countries, approximately 20%, responded “Disagree” . This finding demonstrates that in reality, freedom of association may be less protected by countries’ governments than it is perceived to be. Within the International Labor Organization, the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) addresses violations of freedom of association. In their 2018 annual report, the CFA reported 402 freedom of association complaints from Africa, 410 from Asian and the Pacific, 657 from Europe, 1,681 from Latin America and 186 from North America. Furthermore, their data reveals decreases in complaints in Africa, Asia and the Pacfic, and North America and increases in complaints in Latin America in 2018. 100% of the freedom of association cases examined by the CFA were brought about by workers, rather than employers. 50% of these workers were from the private sector. Violations of trade union rights and civil liberties composed the majority of freedom of association cases investigated by the CFA.
Freedom of Association		The United States Supreme Court has recognized two types of associative freedoms protected under the Constitution; expressive and intimate (Congress, Amdt 1.8.1). Expressive association covers an individual’s right to form and join groups or unions that express a collective purpose, while intimate refers to an individual’s right to maintain private associations (Hudson Jr., 2009). Freedom of association is covered under Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The United States Court system has recognized both aspects of freedom of association through multiple court cases such as Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and Roberts v. United States Jaycees (Hudson Jr., 2009). The United Nations Human Rights Office states “Freedom of association is an essential element of democracy that serves as a vehicle for the exercise of many other rights guaranteed under international law, including the right to freedom of expression (UN Human Rights. 2023). Examples of expressive association include interacting and organizing amongst other citizens to collectively express and promote common interests, as well as the right to form and join trade unions, or work for non-governmental organizations(NGOs). Within the intimate aspect of association, those in democracies have a right to hold private relationships and associations without interference. In major democratic regimes such as the United States and the United Kingdom, freedom of association is respected and protected. In the United States, “officials respect the constitutional right to assembly; laws and practices give wide freedom to NGOs and activists to pursue civic and policy agendas; and federal law guarantees trade unions the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining (Freedom House, 2023).” In the United Kingdom, the freedom to assemble, go on strike, and bargain collectively are also all respected. NGOs may also operate freely, and workers have a right to organize trade unions, and even their own Labour Party. While perfect freedom is not always the case, as seen in examples of police brutality against protesters in the United States, and in the UK with the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act of 2022, freedom of association is generally upheld and protected within democratic regimes. However, global democracy is on the decline, and in the 2015 John Hopkins University Press’ Journal of Democracy, Douglas Rutzen discusses how authoritarianism is placing an increasing threat to civil society. He says, “Since 2012, more than 160 laws constraining the freedoms of association or assembly have been enacted or proposed in 60 countries. This trend is consistent with the continuing decline of democracy worldwide(Rutzen, 2015, 30).” Freedom in the World 2023 shows us that 2022 was the 17th consecutive year of a global decline in freedom. As freedom of association is recognized by international law, this is not reflected when exercised within authoritarian regimes. In Countries such as Venezuela, freedom of association is strongly restricted and those who exercise this right can face major consequences. “The government is being investigated for crimes against humanity regarding how they treat opposition protests; Human Rights activists and members of NGOs face harassment, threats, and arrest; and the government has cracked down on labor unions with opposition unions and several labor union leaders have been arrested or killed (Freedom House, 2023)”. The autocratic regime of Kazakhstan also has strict restrictions on those who assemble and protest. Those who fail to follow these restrictions are subject to detainment, torture, and death as seen in the 2022 gas price protests in western Kazakhstan. “NGOs continue to operate but face government harassment when they attempt to address politically sensitive issues. There are extensive legal restrictions on the formation and operation of NGOs…Workers have limited rights to form and join trade unions or participate in collective bargaining. The government is closely affiliated with the largest union federation and major employers, while genuinely independent unions face repressive actions by the authorities. The country’s major independent trade union body was dissolved in 2017(Freedom House, 2023).” Intimate association is also not free within an autocracy as seen in Russia. Although private relationships are allowed, social media is heavily monitored, minority religious groups are often targeted, and political repression has impacted private discussions with cases of citizens reporting others for expressing views or associations in opposition to the government. “The government restricts freedom of assembly. Overwhelming police responses, the excessive use of force, routine arrests, and harsh fines and prison sentences have largely discouraged unsanctioned protests, while pro-Kremlin groups are able to demonstrate freely… The government has also relentlessly persecuted NGOs, particularly those that work on human rights and governance issues. Civic activists are frequently arrested on politically motivated charges(Freedom House, 2023).” Exercising freedom of association within an autocratic regime is heavily restricted and poses a major risk. While sometimes possible to assemble and protest, it is not without registration and approval, being met with police force, or facing other significant consequences. As the middle ground between democracy and autocracy, hybrid regimes recognize freedom of association accordingly. Freedom House ranks countries on a scale of 1-4; democratic regimes typically place at a 3 or 4 regarding freedom of association, whereas autocratic regimes place at a 0 or 1. However, hybrid regimes consistently place at a 1, 2, or 3 depending on the nation. As declared by the European Parliament, Hungary has now transitioned from a deficient democracy, into a “hybrid regime of electoral autocracy. (European Parliament Press Release, 2022).” However, according to Freedom House, Hungary exemplifies a true hybrid regime with the possession of liberty and limitations to the freedom of association. The freedom to assemble is constitutionally protected and often respected, scoring a 4/4; however, associations with NGOs that go against the government agenda are subjected to stigmatization, monitoring, and fines placing associative freedom at a 2/4 (Freedom House, 2023). The hybrid regime of Jordan, a constitutional monarchy with an elected lower house in parliament, has a registration system for the formation of associations that must be approved by authority (Makary, 2007). In the International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law’s 10th volume issued in 2007, Marc Makary examines the case studies of Jordan and Lebanon and the guarantees of freedom of association in non-democratic environments. He states “While freedom of association in Jordan is protected by the Constitution, its laws are contrary to the standards for freedom of association set by International Law. Article 16 of the Constitution grants Jordanians the right ‘to establish societies and political parties provided that the objects of such societies and parties are lawful, their methods peaceful, and their by-laws not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.’ While Article 16 seems to provide space for individuals to establish associations, its paragraph (iii) places the establishment of associations and political parties under the control of the law with Jordanian Law N° 33 of 1966 granting absolute discretion to the Minister of Social Affairs or the Minister of Interior to register associations, ban undeclared associations, and establish long and burdensome administrative procedures (Makary’s, 2007). ” Makary’s findings have not changed much since 2007, as the current hybrid regime strictly limits free assembly, heavily monitors and regulates NGO operations in an arbitrary manner, and limits the industries in which unions may form with the limited right to strike (Freedom House, 2023). Hungary was on the more positive end of the spectrum with middle averaging scores, contrary to Jordan with scores of 1/4 and 0/4 regarding freedom of association. Hybrid systems can fluctuate how much freedom they allow for people to associate with each other. Democratic regimes remain at the top levels of ability regarding the right to exercise freedom of association without interference; whether that be through assembly, union membership, expressive group discussion, or intimate association, citizens of democracies face little to no limits. In contrast, Autocratic regimes place heavy restrictions and limits on the exercise of this freedom and often punish those who do. While the actions do not vary much depending on the regime, the ability to do so freely without interference is truly where the differences lie. European Parliament. 2022. “MEPs: Hungary Can No Longer Be Considered a Full Democracy. News. European Parliament.” Www.europarl.europa.eu. September 15, 2022. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220909IPR40137/meps-hungary-can-no-longer-be-considered-a-full-democracy. Freedom House. 2023. “ Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report.” Freedom House. 2023. https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2023 Gorokhovskaia, Yana, Adrian Shahbaz, and Amy Slipowitz. 2023. “Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy.” Freedom House. 2023. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2023/marking-50-years. Jr, David L. Hudson. 2009. “Freedom of Association.” Www.mtsu.edu. 2009. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1594/freedom-of-association. Makary, Marc. “Notification or Registration? Guarantees of Freedom of Association in Non-Democratic Environments: Case Studies of Lebanon and Jordan.” n.d. ICNL. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.icnl.org/resources/research/ijnl/notification-or-registration-guarantees-of-freedom-of-association-in-non-democratic-environments-case-studies-of-lebanon-and-jordan. Rutzen, Douglas. "Authoritarianism Goes Global (II): Civil Society Under Assault." Journal of Democracy, vol. 26 no. 4, 2015, p. 28-39. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0071. United Nations Human Rights. 2023. “OHCHR Freedom of Assembly and of Association.” n.d. OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/topic/freedom-assembly-and-association#:~:text=Everyone%20has%20the%20rights%20to,protests%2C%20both%20offline%20and%20online. United States Congress. Constitution Annotated. Amdt1.8.1 Overview of Freedom of Association. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-8-1/ALDE_00013139/
Freedom of Association		Freedom of Association refers to the right to associate and interact with organizations and individuals in terms of organizing and demanding common interests. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights defines this right as, “The right to freedom of association involves the right of individuals to interact and organize among themselves to collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. This includes the right to form trade unions.”(OHCR). This right is stated under the 20th article of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which states, “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”(United Nations 1948). This right is generally associated with labor unions and is stated as the right of ‘Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining’ according to the International Labour Organization which is a United Nations body that advances economic justice and rights such as the freedom of association. This right is generally interpreted and defined differently under different constitutions pertaining to the various importance of the right to the environment and culture of the country. For example the United States’ constitution does not explicitly state the right to freedom of association rather in the first amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”(US Constitution Annotated 2022). Therefore the United States supports a form of association and does not allow the prohibition of ‘assembly’ of individuals ‘peaceably’. This right is often associated and phrased in constitutions as the ‘Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining’ this implies a distinction between the two concepts; with collective bargaining being associated with the demands rather than the organization of the individuals. Liberal democratic countries often support this right based on common understandings from the English philosopher John Locke who in his writing of "Two Treatises of Government". Locke championed three fundamental unalienable rights which are: the right to life, liberty, and property. As such he does not explicitly state the right of freedom of association, yet he does describe the right of individuals to join together in pursuit of their interests. Locke argues, “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.”(Locke 1689) individuals have the natural right to associate with others based on mutual consent, forming communities and engaging in collective endeavors. He believed that individuals should have the liberty to create associations, including religious congregations, trade unions, and political organizations, in order to protect and advance their shared interests. Furthermore, John Locke introduced the concept of the ‘Social Contract’ exploring the idea of a collective agreement that establishes the norms, behaviors, and rules necessary for the formation of a society and a functioning government. John Locke, in his influential work "Two Treatises of Government," argued that individuals willingly enter into a social contract to form a civil society. This organized entity consent to be governed by an authority that protects their natural and unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Locke argues that if the government violates this social contract by infringing upon these fundamental rights, they have the right to resist and potentially overthrow the government. The idea of the social contract highlights the notion of individuals entering into a collective agreement to form a society and a government that serves their common interests and protects their rights. The concepts put forth by Locke contribute to the understanding of the relationship between individuals and the government, as well as the rights and responsibilities that arise from this social contract in terms of freedom of association. Furthermore, this right according to international organizations, specifically the International Trade Union Confederation, which has utilized an index to rank and identify the extent of the adoption of this right around the world(The International Trade Union Confederation 2022). According to the index, all countries generally have a clause or article that pertains to a form of right of freedom of association but many countries obstruct this right through justifications of ‘Free Speech’ of businessmen against their employees, ‘National Interests’, among other reasons for infractions on this right. Whereas, the exceptions of the right generally exist in different frequencies, it is generally unjustified according to the ILO and ITUC to obstruct this freedom, whereas according to the OHCR in their comparative study Authoritarian regimes tend to obstruct this freedom for their political and national interests and while they may allow association to exist it would ultimately be ineffective. For example, the ILO details in its ‘Arab States Workers' Organizations’ page figures which detail the limitations of the application of the right of freedom of association in which a multiplicity of Arab countries do not allow for migrant workers to join trade unions. This is seen as the ILO states, “With the exception of Bahrain and Oman, across the Arab States migrant workers are excluded from trade union representation by law.” This shows a general common exception based on the environment of freedom of association in the case of the Arab states, many of which have a significant labor pool of expatriate workers. To conclude, while most states are part of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and almost all countries recognize the constitutional right to association, the limitations and exceptions to this right vary significantly based on the specific environment and cultural context. Bibliography Constitution Annotated. 2022. “U.S. Constitution - First Amendment Resources Constitution Annotated Congress.gov Library of Congress.” Constitution.congress.gov. 2022. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/#:~:text=Congress%20shall%20make%20no%20law. ILO. n.d. “8.Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (Decent Work for Sustainable Development (DW4SD) Resource Platform).” Www.ilo.org. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/dw4sd/themes/freedom-of-association/lang--en/index.htm. ———. n.d. “Workers’ Organizations (Arab States).” Www.ilo.org. https://www.ilo.org/beirut/areasofwork/workers/lang--en/index.htm. Locke, John. 1689. Two Treatises of Government. S.L.: Blurb. McCombs School of Business. 2022. “Social Contract Theory.” Ethics Unwrapped. 2022. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/social-contract-theory#:~:text=Social%20contract%20theory%20says%20that. “OHCHR Freedom of Assembly and of Association.” n.d. OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/topic/freedom-assembly-and-association#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20freedom%20of. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1964. The First and Second Discourses. Bedford Books. ———. 1987. On the Social Contract. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (Orig. pub. 1762.). The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. 2016. “Social Contract.” In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract. The International Trade Union Confederation. 2022. “2022 ITUC Global Rights Index.” The International Trade Union Confederation. Sharan Burrow, General Secretary. https://files.mutualcdn.com/ituc/files/2022-ITUC-Rights-Index-Exec-Summ-EN_2022-08-10-062736.pdf. United Nations. 1948. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights - English.” OHCHR. United Nations. December 10, 1948. https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english.
Freedom of Expression		The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December of 1948, recognized freedom of expression as a universal human right, inherent and applicable to all individuals. A milestone declaration, it has subsequently influenced countless state constitutions, treaties, and legal codes, defining the right as including the “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (UN General Assembly 1948, 5). Though a majority of nations grant freedom of expression to their constituents in a formal capacity, there are often discrepancies in the way they are practiced and protected, as well as interpreted, in part because of a country’s history, political philosophy, and social factors. Some states are more restrictive of expression, prohibiting or discouraging acts and speech that reflect negatively on the nation’s religion, regime, or culture, while others safeguard this form of expression. Nearly all have censorship laws in place that touch upon defamation and libel, hate speech, and obscenities, though with varying degrees of consequences and protection. Nations with strong secular traditions, such as France, allow for criticisms and negative portrayals of religion under the right to freedom of expression, while theocratic states, like Iran and Pakistan, completely restrict it under threat of punishment. Freedom of expression has been a fundamental right for French citizens since the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789, which provided a “limited freedom of expression whose scope is defined by law,” leaving it up to legislators to establish those limits (Guedj 2021, 1). The right was redefined by the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 1881, which reemphasized the public’s ability to express itself while forbidding libel, defamation, offence to public decency and provocations to crimes, among others, and then again with the Pleven Act of 1972 and the Gayssot Act, which prohibited incitement to racial/religious hatred and Holocaust denial respectively (Colosimo 2018, 2). Those who violate these laws can be subject to fines or imprisonment. However, under France’s legislature, it is “possible to insult a religion, its figures and symbols,” as long as it does not incite violence or “insult members of a religion” for belonging to that faith (Colosimo 2018, 2). Though the lines between the two can be blurry, the right to freedom of expression in France is quite liberal when it comes to discussion around religion and allows for acts of expression that go against theological doctrine and criticize it. There are several theocratic states that have provisions within their legal framework that also guarantee freedom of expression, though they heavily restrict it through strict anti-blasphemy laws that prohibit any act or speech that can be perceived as negative by governmental authorities and carry punishments. Article 24 of Iran’s constitution states, “Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law” (“Islamic Republic of Iran” 2023, 14). Pakistan has a similar provision in its constitution with Article 19: "Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defense of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, committing, or inciting an offence" (Pakistan Constitution, ch. 1, art. 19). While Iran and Pakistan do have a legal freedom of expression, they restrict it, with the international non-profit organization Reporters Without Borders (RWB) citing various cases in which they censored and filtered what is put online and “punished citizens for statements that were considered blasphemous” (“2023 World Press Freedom Index” 2023, 5). Restrictions of expressions on religion are not only enforced in theocratic countries, however, as Finland forbids breaching the sanctity of religion “which includes ‘blaspheming against God,’ publicly defaming or desecrating to offend something a religious community holds sacred, and disturbing worship or funeral ceremonies” with violators being subject to “fines or imprisonment of up to six months” (“Finland 2021 Report” 2021, 3). Thailand, a constitutional monarchy, guaranteed freedom of expression to its citizens since the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and continues to guarantee it with the various different constitutions that have followed since, though it has a distinct interpretation of the right when it comes to the royal family. Thailand’s government is very restrictive of the way citizens can partake in this right, particularly with its strict lèse-majesté laws, seen as one of the harshest in the world. Lèse-majesté is an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state, an act that is prohibited under Thailand’s legal code which states, “Whoever defames, insults, or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir to the Throne, or the Regent, will be punished with a jail sentence between three and fifteen years.” (Mérieau 2021, 77). The state’s right to freedom of expression does not cover speech or acts that are deemed negative towards the monarchy, with the law being considered ambiguous and open to the interpretation of authorities. This distinct interpretation of freedom of expression derives from the influence of Hindu-Buddhist culture in Thailand where kings were seen as divine figures to be respected, giving them a form of sanctity that left a lasting impact on the country’s political system (Mérieau 2021, 78). Other states that interpret freedom of expression in a similar way include Turkey, where it is illegal under Article 301 of the country’s penal code to insult the Turkish nation, its government, and its national heroes under threat of imprisonment (“Turkey: Article 301” 2006, 1). Saudi Arabia, holds freedom of expression to a different status than the previously mentioned states, failing to articulate it in its law but still penalizing acts of expression that are deemed blasphemous or portray the regime in a negative light, with punishments ranging from hefty fines to death sentences. Saudi Arabia’s Basic Law of Governance, the country’s constitution-like charter, does not provide for freedom of expression or the press, simply stating, "Mass media and all other vehicles of expression shall employ civil and polite language, contribute towards the education of the nation, and strengthen unity. The media are prohibited from committing acts that lead to disorder and division, affect the security of the state or its public relations, or undermine human dignity and rights” (U.S. Department of State 2018, 23). This gives authorities ample power to determine what expression violates the law, placing heavy emphasis on the safeguarding of religious values and morals. A distinct feature of freedom of expression in the United States that differentiates it from many other nations is that certain hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. In the United States, “hate speech is given wide constitutional protection while under international human rights covenants and in other Western democracies, such as Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom, it is largely prohibited and subjected to criminal sanctions” (Rosenfeld 2002, 1523). This was reaffirmed in the 2017 U.S. Supreme Court Case Matal v. Tam, in which the justices determined that hate speech falls under the protection of free speech: “With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys” (2). The expression may be subject to punishment if it seeks to incite an imminent violent or lawless action This is quite a different interpretation than many other democratic nations, where expressions that are considered hate speech can be punishable by law. In Germany, for example, acts of expression that are racist, antisemitic, advocating for Nazism, denying the Holocaust, or glorifying the ideology of Hitler are illegal (“Germany: Freedom in the World” 2023, 9). The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a fundamental human right that applies to all individuals by the United Nations, being adopted and incorporated into the legal code or constitutions of a majority of states around the world. The right differs, however, in its interpretation and practice within each individual country, as well as the extent to which it is protected. Some states interpret freedom of expression through a more restrictive lens, prohibiting negative acts of expression that touch upon religion, government, or culture, while others allow it with more lenient limitations. A state’s interpretation of freedom of expression can be influenced by its unique history, its political climate, as well as social and religious factors, resulting in different interpretations and practices of freedom of expression around the world. References: “2023 World Press Freedom Index – Journalism Threatened by Fake Content Industry.” 2023. RSF. Accessed June 14. https://rsf.org/en/2023-world-press-freedom-index- journalism-threatened-fake-content-industry.  Colosimo, Anastasia. 2018. “Blasphemy in France and in Europe: A Right or an Offense?” Institut Montaigne. November 16. https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions “Finland 2021 International Religious Freedom Report.” 2023. U.S. Department of State. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/FINLAND-2021 “Germany: Freedom in the World 2022 Country Report.” 2023. Freedom House. Accessed June 9. https://freedomhouse.org/country/germany/freedom-world/2022.  Guedj, Nikita. 2021. “The Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881: A Text That Both Guarantees and Restricts Freedom of Expression.” Fondation Descartes. July 16. https://www.fondationdescartes.org/en/2021/07/the-law-on-the-freedom-of-the-press-of- 29-july-1881-a-text-that-both-guarantees-and-restricts-freedom-of-expression/. “Islamic Republic of Iran 1979 (Rev. 1989) Constitution.” 1989. Constitute. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Iran_1989?lang=en.  Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Tam. 582 U.S. (2027) Mérieau, E. 2021. “A History of the Thai lèse-majesté Law”. Thai Legal History: From Traditional to Modern Law, 60-70. Rosenfeld, Michel. 2002. “Hate speech in constitutional jurisprudence: a comparative analysis.” Cardozo L. Rev., 24, 1523. “Turkey: Article 301: How the Law on ‘Denigrating Turkishness’ Is an Insult to Free Expression.” 2006. Amnesty International. March 1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/003/2006/en/.  UN General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, , 217 A (III), https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf U.S Department of State. 2018. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017: Saudi Arabia.
Freedom of Expression		The right to freedom of expression is not necessarily qualified as a protected human right in each country or sovereign government. Rather, it is a global human right, as stated in Act 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (Civic, 1997, pg. 129). Within this declaration, a few key factors are revealed that are related to how the freedom of expression is exercised as a legally recognized right. First, expression is acknowledged as being equal to opinions; they are both very imperative when it comes to human rights and the exercise of freedom of expression. Without the acknowledgment of the inherent significance of freedom of expression in a group context or collective capacity, such as protections under the Constitution, the full exercise of the right will not be achieved without an elevated form of protection placed on it. “Therefore, naked freedom of expression, without some common sense or good community sense infused into it, ultimately will fail to protect the individual as a member of the community, by its total disregard for the needs of the society… Thus, while freedom of expression is essential to human dignity, additionally, for the ultimate good of the individual as a member of society, such freedom must be exercised responsibly and with a recognition of the integral relationship the autonomous self has with the greater society.” (Civic, 1997, pg.143). Although many different governments and nations recognize the significance of freedom of expression, they may not agree with the outcome of fully exercising this right for all citizens. Along those lines, when protections for freedom of expression are not present within a country or society, the full capacity for citizens to freely express their ideas and thoughts in an individual or community context will subsequently be stifled. The difference between protections of ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘freedom of speech’ is determined by the way that somebody voices or expresses an idea or opinion. Protections under the freedom of speech may be determined by the words themselves that are used, but the expression is conveyed through action, and moreover what a person is trying to show with that action. “The terms ‘expression’ and ‘action’ are functional ones, rooted in the fundamental character of a system of free expression and in the factors necessary to maintain its effective operation. Hence it is clear that the term ‘expression’ must include more than the mere utterance of words or other forms of communication. It must embrace a surrounding area of conduct closely related to the making of the utterance or necessary to make it effective.” (Emerson, 1964, pg. 24-25). Thomas Scanlon analyzed the theoretical significance of how freedom of expression is positioned between protected acts and the consequences of exercising this right. “The most common defense of the doctrine of freedom of expression is a consequential one. This may take the form of arguing with respect to a certain class of acts, e.g., acts of speech, that the good consequences of allowing such acts to go unrestricted outweigh the bad. Alternatively, the boundaries of the class of protected acts may themselves be defined by balancing good consequences against bad, the question of whether a certain species of acts belong to the private genus being decided in many is not all cases just by asking whether its inclusion would, on the whole, lead to more good consequences than bad.” (Scanlon, 1972, pg. 204-5). Within this analysis, the reflection of the significance of intention comes to light, where there is negative or malicious intent, protections remain absent under freedom of expression. One cannot use freedom of expression to instill violence, or suppression, but rather as a way to exude an opinion or idea that does not push these limitations under legal precedent. “However, since acts of expression can be both violent and arbitrarily destructive, it seems unlikely that anyone would maintain that as a class they were immune from legal restrictions. Thus the class of protected acts must be some proper subset of this class. It is sometimes held that the relevant subclass consists of those acts of expression which are instances of ‘speech’ as ‘opposed to action’.” (Scanlon, 1972, pg. 207). Freedom of speech differs inherently from the freedom of expression based on an action directive, a person can say something that goes against the government’s prerogative and not face legal consequences, but upon acting to overthrow or dismantle that government, the protection of expression does not extend to ‘fighting’ actions or malicious acts. This theorizing under the freedom of expression justly points out the differences between American protections of expression under democracy, versus a more autocratic regime that aligns itself with dictatorships or communist ideologies. For example, in the People’s Republic of China, a socialist democracy under the legal definition, the government chooses to remain neutral upon expression protections unless they conflict with the individualistic ideology of communal support. “The Communist perspective on free speech, by contrast, assigns absolute priority to the well-being of the community, and in so doing, sacrifices individual freedom of expression.” (Civic, 1997, pg. 127). Under the People’s Republic of China’s legal provisions, freedom of expression is intertwined with freedom of speech. “Speech and other forms of expression must be internally, as well as externally, restrained to serve all of the people [under the ideology of Communism]…Thus, the Chinese perception of free speech in particular, and human rights in general, is propelled by Communist ideology which emphasizes the interests of the community at the expense of individual interests. Finally, the ‘rights’ of the individual are defined relative to his duties to the community, and are subjected to qualification, restriction, and repression for community interests, as defined by the Communist Party elite.” (Civic, 1997, pg. 128). The gray area that is ‘freedom of expression’ within the ideology of Communism conflicts with the obvious reality of actually having protections of freedom of expression. Where there is no protection, there is a lack of freedom to act upon an idea or opinion. Although the freedom of expression is distinguishable from the freedom of speech, they are communally intertwined under the Communist ideology. Freedom of expression must serve to fit the relative overall needs of the community in the PRC through their freedom of speech, otherwise, it does not qualify legally as protection of freedom of expression. References: Civic, Melanne Andromecca. "Right to Freedom of Expression as the Principal Component of the Preservation of Personal Dignity: An Argument for International Protection within All Nations and across All Borders." In Hybrid, vol. 4, p. 117. 1997 Emerson, Thomas I. "Freedom of Association and Freedom of Expression." The Yale Law Journal 74, no. 1 (1964): 1-35. Scanlon, Thomas. "A theory of freedom of expression." Philosophy & Public Affairs (1972): 204-226 ( 1972) : 204-226
Freedom of Expression		According to Pew Research, majorities in Australia, Turkey, the Philippines, Ukraine, South Africa and Nigeria report that it is important to have free press, an essential element of freedom of expression. Freedom of the press is considered very important by less than half of adults in South Korea, Japan, Israel, Indonesia, Russia, India, Tunisia and Lebanon, revealing these societies possibly place less of an emphasis on freedom of expression. Furthermore, Pew notes that despite the fact that freedom of the press has declined since 2015, support for freedom of the press has increased overall. This demonstrates that individuals value freedom of expression greater when it becomes limited. Additionally, according to Pew people with less education and people with populist views are less likely to assert freedom of the press to be important. Focusing on the United States, a Cato Institute study showed 58% of Americans felt that the current political climate keeps them from expressing themselves. Within this statistic, 53% of Democrats say they do not need to censor themselves in comparison to 27% of Republicans and 42% of Independents. This demonstrates that among Americans, Republicans particularly feel their right to free expression is limited by certain social and political norms, as they feel the need to restrict their speech. In regards to hate speech, despite the fact that 79% of Americans find it “morally unacceptable”, the Cato study reveals 59% of Americans believe it should be allowed in the public. Analyzing these numbers, the study claims, “the public appears to distinguish between allowing offensive speech and endorsing it.” Additionally, the study asserts that 66% of Americans believe colleges need to do more to teach Americans about the value of free speech, emphasizing that Americans highly value freedom of expression. Looking to college campuses, a 2017 Gallup poll found that 61% of college students strongly agreed that their campus climate prevents people from saying the things they believe. This was up seven percentage points from 2016, when Gallup previously surveyed students. A reversal from 2016, Democrats and Independents were more likely than Republican students to believe their college environment limited their ability to speak freely. Lastly, the study found that a smaller majority of students polled preferred a campus where all speech was allowed, demonstrating that students' value of free speech on campus has declined. An additional Pew study found that globally, a median of 62% of individuals say their country protects individual freedom of expression. Furthermore, the study found that individuals in countries with advanced economies were more likely to report that their country supported freedom of expression than individuals in countries with emerging economies. In Brazil, Spain, Argentina, Italy and Mexico, more than 50% of surveyed individuals stated they did not agree with the statement that their country supports freedom of expression. Specifically, Brazil reported very low numbers for freedom of expression, 39% saying their country does not support free expression at all. Within Europe, individuals in countries with favorable populist parties, such as Sweden, were additionally less likely to report that freedom of expression was protected by their government. References: Emily Ekins, The Cato Institute, "The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America," October 31, 2017: https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america Aidan Connaughton, Pew Research Center, "5 charts on views of press freedom around the world", May 1 2020: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/05/01/5-charts-on-views-of-press-freedom-around-the-world/ Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup,"More U.S. College Students Say Campus Climate Deters Speech," March 12, 2018, https://news.gallup.com/poll/229085/college-students-say-campus-climate-deters-speech.aspx Richard Wike, Laura Silver, and Alexandra Castillo, Pew Research Center, "Publics satisfied with free speech, ability to improve living standards; many are critical of institutions, politicians," April 29, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/04/29/publics-satisfied-with-free-speech-ability-to-improve-living-standards-many-are-critical-of-institutions-politicians/
Freedom of Expression		Even though freedom of expression is not written into the US Constitution, as are many fundamental rights in the USA, most people would agree that this right is fundamental and should generally be protected, however the level to which it should be protected may differ from person to person. Most people would think that freedom of expression is fundamental because it allows for conversations in two different areas of life: legal discourse and everyday life. Most Americans believe that freedom of expression is a fundamental right that should be protected. People should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of being “cancelled” or that they will be harmed for voicing their opinion. The Knight Foundation produced a survey on Americans’ views on free speech and found that 91% of them think that protecting it is crucial to protecting American Democracy (Knight Foundation, 2022). This necessity for freedom of speech becomes especially true when two people have an opposing viewpoint on something because they should be able to disagree freely, without fear of punishment. However, in a New York Times Article, most Americans have begun to bite their tongue because they’re afraid of “cancel culture,” a phenomenon that occurs when a politician, celebrity, or another influential person speaks in a certain way that causes a withdrawal of support. Some people may feel like others don’t need to express everything they’re thinking. In this article, “America has a Free Speech Problem,” the authors say that a poll created by Times Opinion and Siena College found that “84 percent of adults said it is a ‘very serious’ or ‘somewhat serious’ problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism” (America Has a Free Speech Problem, 2022). In an interview between Sean Illing and Brian Leiter for Vox, Leiter explains that “we have massive amounts of worthless, dangerous speech in the public sphere right now” (Illing, 2019). It seems as if Leiter isn’t saying that freedom of speech is a “bad” thing, so much as that some people may be abusing this freedom. If speech were more regulated, and people weren’t allowed to post whatever they wanted without being fact-checked, then the speech could be less damaging—there could be less fake news, for instance. Limitations on freedom of expression could under such circumstances prevent unnecessary harm. Justice Murphy, in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, argued that there are “certain categorical exceptions to First Amendment protections, including obscenities, certain profane and slanderous speech, and ‘fighting words’ (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire). This case is still upheld today, so anyone engages in such speech may be punished by the law. While freedom of expression protects most people’s actions, it does not allow people to express themselves however they want. Some exceptions have been asserted over the years in American law. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, a student was reprimanded by school officials for making a “lewd and vulgar speech” at an assembly. This is similar to Schenck v. United States, which ruled that yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is not protected by the first amendment. So, the constitution has allowed for “freedom of speech,” there are exceptions when it seems it’s not appropriate for the setting. In this article, she mentions that “people can’t go around saying what they think all the time when that speech infringes on other’s rights. There needs to be a limit for what people do say, where people say it, when people say it” (Hanna, 2022). While they may not be rare, exceptions to the protection of freedom of expression should be made when our words negatively impact someone else. It seems as if freedom of expression in the United States is less censored than in other parts of the world. In nations such as North Korea, Turkmenistan, Libya, Syria, and Belarus “the media is either state-controlled or silenced, the internet is filtered, and highly censored and restrictive laws are used—often in tandem with fear and intimidation—to prevent the spread of ideas and information” (Countries with Freedom of Speech 2024). While freedom of expression seems to be a priority in the United States, other countries do not protect people’s rights to express themselves freely. Freedom of expression is protected when it does not cause unnecessary harm or potentially put someone at risk. And on the off chance that it does negatively affect someone, or causes them harm, then there should be exceptions to their ability to freely express themselves. References: Knight Foundation. 2022. “Free Speech for All? Poll Reveals Americans’ Views on Free Expression Post-2020.” Knight Foundation. January 6, 2022. https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/free-speech-for-all-poll-reveals-americans-views-on-free-expression-post-2020/. The Editorial Board. 2022. “America Has a Free Speech Problem.” New York Times, March 18, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html. Illing, Sean. 2019. “Free Speech: Is It Actually a Good Thing?” Vox. Vox. March 4, 2019. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/4/18197209/free-speech-philosophy-politics-brian-leiter. “Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.” 2019. Oyez. 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/315us568. Hanna, Verina. 2022. “Limitations Are Necessary for Freedom of Speech.” THE ALGONQUIN HARBINGER. March 17, 2022. https://arhsharbinger.com/29742/opinion/limitations-are-necessary-for-the-freedom-of-speech/#:~:text=The%20limitations%20of%20the%20freedom. World Population Review. 2022. “Countries with Freedom of Speech 2020.” Worldpopulationreview.com. 2022. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech.
Freedom of Religion		The right to freedom of religion is interpreted and expressed in a number of different ways all over the world. Most modern states’ constitutions recognize freedoms of belief, faith, and practice of religion within their borders, so long as that practice does not pose a danger to the state or society. Many of these countries respect their citizens’ right to freedom of religion, though some do place certain restrictions on the right by requiring religious organizations to register, outlawing certain religious practices, or restricting religious toleration to a few choice faiths. The United States was one of the earliest countries to embrace the principle of freedom of religion, but its implementation of that right within its legal framework is rather unusual. While the country was founded upon the principles of liberty and freedom, it does not specify the right to religious freedom within its Constitution. Rather, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (United States Bill of Rights, Article I). This means that the government must respect the people’s religious freedom, but it does not specifically establish the right to the free practice of faith or belief. Of course, the right has been exercised freely throughout the country’s history, and over the years the courts have determined that the right is implied within the Constitution. Canada also guarantees the right to religious freedom, but it does so more directly than the United States. Its constitution guarantees that “freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on religion” (U.S. State Department, “Canada,” 2018, 1). By directly invoking freedom of religion in its legal system, Canada leaves less to interpretation than the United States Bill of Rights. It also allows citizens to protect their own right to religious freedom by appealing directly to the right in legal cases. A 2018 U.S. State Department report on Canadian religious freedom notes that while Canadian law “imposes ‘reasonable limits’ on the exercise of these religious rights only where such restrictions can be ‘demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,’” the law also “permits individuals to sue the government for ‘violations’ of religious freedom.” (U.S. State Department, “Canada,” 2018, 3). Of course, not every country that guarantees the right to freedom of religion allows its citizens to exercise that right. The People’s Republic of China, for instance, guarantees its citizens the right to freedom of religion, but places heavy restrictions on the practice of that freedom. The U.S. State Department reports that the PRC government “limits protections for religious practice to ‘normal religious activities’ and does not define ‘normal,’” and that it “continues to exercise control over religion and restrict the activities and personal freedom of religious adherents when the government perceived these as threatening state or Chinese Communist Party (CCP) interests” (U.S. State Department, “China,” 2018, 1). The report also states that in 2018 “there continued to be reports of deaths in custody and that the government tortured, physically abused, arrested, detained, sentenced to prison, or harassed adherents of both registered and unregistered religious groups for activities related to their religious beliefs and practices” (U.S. State Department, “China,” 2018, 1). Reports show that Muslims have recently been the most heavily targeted religious group as the Chinese government continues to crack down on religious expression. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is guilty of similar rights violations. While the North Korean constitution also guarantees freedom of religion for its citizens, the State Department reports that within the country“there was an almost complete denial by the government of the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and in many instances, violations of human rights committed by the government constituted crimes against humanity” (U.S. State Department, “North Korea,” 2018, 1). While information on the North Korean government is notoriously difficult to acquire, accounts from witnesses and refugees indicate that the country is reluctant to allow the free practice of religion, and that it actively represses the people’s exercise of this right through the use of force. The State Department reports that “one [North Korean] refugee said there was no religious freedom in the country, and another said that if someone were found to be a Christian, he or she would immediately be shot.” (U.S. State Department, “North Korea,” 2018, 3). Such horrific conditions prove that while many states may claim to respect their citizens’ freedom of religion, this right is often subject to heavy regulation and restriction. Iran is almost unique in its treatment of religious freedom, because its government does not guarantee the right at all. “The constitution defines the country as an Islamic republic, and specifies Twelver Ja’afari Shia Islam as the official state religion. It states all laws and regulations must be based on “Islamic criteria” and an official interpretation of sharia” (U.S. State Department, “Iran,” 2018, 3). The discussion of other religions is restricted within the country, and the constitution states that “no one may be ‘subjected to questioning and aggression for merely holding an opinion.’” According to the State Department, the law also “prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religious beliefs” (U.S. State Department, “Iran,” 2018, 3). This does not mean that minority religions are outlawed; recognized minority groups are allowed to operate private schools, though they are subject to a number of restrictions (U.S. State Department, “Iran,” 2018, 7). In such a theocracy, the exercise of religious freedom is very difficult and exceedingly dangerous. Different countries interpret the right to freedom of religion in a number of varying ways, and this often leads governments to restrict their citizens’ exercise of that right. Most modern states guarantee the right within their constitutions, but the actual protection of citizens’ freedom of religion is not always observed in states controlled by authoritarian or oppressive regimes. References: United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. IRAN 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/IRAN-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FRE EDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. CHINA (INCLUDES TIBET, XINJIANG, HONG KONG, AND MACAU) 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CHINA-INCLUSIVE-2018-INTERNATIONAL-R ELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. Ochab, Ewelina U. “Is China Conducting A Crackdown On Religion?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 20 Apr. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2019/04/20/is-china-conducting-a-crackdown-on-religion/. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. ITALY 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ITALY-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FR EEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. IRAN 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/IRAN-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FRE EDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (DPRK) 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/KOREA-DEM-REP-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RE LIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. RUSSIA 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/RUSSIA-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-F REEDOM-REPORT.pdf. U.S. Mission Egypt, 23 June, 2019, Topics: News. “2018 Report on International Religious Freedom: Egypt.” U.S. Embassy in Egypt, 27 June 2019, eg.usembassy.gov/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom-egypt/. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. BELARUS 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/BELARUS-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS -FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. CANADA 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CANADA-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS- FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. NEW ZEALAND 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NEW-ZEALAND-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELI GIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf.
Freedom of Religion		Regime type affects all facets of political life within a country, and the exercise of religious freedom is no exception. As might be expected, governments and societies in democratic states like New Zealand and Canada tend to show greater levels of respect for religious freedom than states with different regime types. Citizens living in states controlled by hybrid regimes tend to still experience some level of religious freedom, but this right is severely restricted by government-required registries and heavy oversight of religious practice. Autocracies, predictably, are the regime type that shows the least respect for their citizens’ right to religious freedom. The right to religious freedom is expressed openly and without fear in the world’s most democratic states. Countries like New Zealand and Canada, both of which are listed among the most democratic states in the word, both stipulate in their constitutions that citizens shall enjoy total freedom of faith, belief, and religion. A 2018 U.S. State Department report on religious freedom in Canada mentions a constitutional guarantee that citizens shall enjoy “freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on religion” (U.S. State Department, “Canada,” 2018, 1). New Zealand’s constitution makes a very similar guarantee, and both countries are reported to enjoy high levels of religious liberty. Discrimination on the basis of religion is usually outlawed in democratic states, and while religious intolerance may sometimes be observed in the form of citizen anti-semitism or vandalism, democratic governments as a whole work to limit any religious injustice within their borders. Even democracies with obvious religious majorities like Italy tend to allow the free exercise of religious practices, though most do require religious organizations to register with the government in order to receive tax exemptions (U.S. State Department, “Italy,” 2018, 1). Hybrid regimes usually exert more significant influence over the exercise of religious freedom within their borders. Egypt, for example, is a state governed by limited democracy which also shows clear autocratic tendencies. In Egypt, “The constitution states that ‘freedom of belief is absolute’ and ‘the freedom of practicing religious rituals and establishing worship places for the followers of divine (i.e. Abrahamic) religions is a right regulated by law’” (U.S. State Department, “Egypt,” 2018). However, U.S. State Department reports show that these freedoms are subject to a number of restrictions. It mentions that Muslim citizens are prohibited from converting to a new relition under Egyptian law, and it notes that the Ministry of Interior Religious Affairs Department has the power to deny religious groups official recognition if they are determined to pose a threat to the nation (U.S. State Department, “Egypt,” 2018). A U.S. State Department report on religious freedom in Russia reveals a similar willingness within the Russian government to restrict religious practices if they are deemed “extremist” or “dangerous” (U.S. State Department, “Russia,” 2018). In hybrid regimes like Russia and Egypt, religious practice is protected but heavily regulated. Autocratic regimes are generally the most restrictive of religious freedom. China, perhaps the world’s most powerful autocracy, shows the lack of respect that it has for its citizens’ religious convictions in its treatment of Muslims, in particular. The constitution of the People’s Republic of China allows for the free practice of approved religions, but a Forbes article from 2019 reports that “China is participating in the practice of forced conversion whereby Muslims are forced to ‘eat pork and drink alcohol’” (Ochab, “Is China Conducting a Crackdown On Religion?” 2019). A U.S. State Department report from 2018 similarly notes that “there continue to be reports of deaths in custody and that the government tortured, physically abused, arrested, detained, sentenced to prison, or harassed adherents of both registered and unregistered religious groups for activities related to their religious beliefs and practices” (U.S. State Department, “China,” 2018). Belarus, which is ruled by an authoritarian dictatorial regime, imposes similar restrictions on the free practice of religion. Like China, North Korea, and a number of other autocratic nations, Belarus guarantees religious freedom within its constitution but fails to guarantee this right for its citizens. However, a State Department report notes that Belarusian law “prohibits religious activities directed against the sovereignty of the state, its constitutional system, and ‘civic harmony’” (U.S. State Department, “Belarus,” 2018). It states that the Belarusian regime bans all religious activity by unregistered groups, and explains that there are a number of administrative and legal obstacles that prevent most religious organizations from being officially recognized (U.S. State Department, “Belarus,” 2018). Regime type plays a significant role in determining the extent to which a government protects the exercise of religious freedom. In general, the more democratic a regime is, the more likely it is to guarantee and respect its citizens’ right to freedom of religion. REFERENCES: United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. IRAN 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/IRAN-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FRE EDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. CHINA (INCLUDES TIBET, XINJIANG, HONG KONG, AND MACAU) 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CHINA-INCLUSIVE-2018-INTERNATIONAL-R ELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. Ochab, Ewelina U. “Is China Conducting A Crackdown On Religion?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 20 Apr. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2019/04/20/is-china-conducting-a-crackdown-on-religion/. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. ITALY 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ITALY-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FR EEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. IRAN 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/IRAN-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FRE EDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (DPRK) 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/KOREA-DEM-REP-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RE LIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. RUSSIA 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/RUSSIA-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-F REEDOM-REPORT.pdf. U.S. Mission Egypt, 23 June, 2019, Topics: News. “2018 Report on International Religious Freedom: Egypt.” U.S. Embassy in Egypt, 27 June 2019, eg.usembassy.gov/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom-egypt/. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. BELARUS 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/BELARUS-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS -FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. CANADA 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CANADA-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS- FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf. United States, Congress, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. NEW ZEALAND 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT. International Religious Freedom Report for 2018, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NEW-ZEALAND-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELI GIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf.
Freedom of Religion		Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a landmark document within the field of international human rights law, recognizes freedom of religion as a fundamental and intrinsic human right. It establishes the right to freedom of religion as encompassing an individual’s “freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance” (UN General Assembly 1948, 1). Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration by the United Nations General Assembly in December of 1948, freedom of religion is guaranteed in the charters and constitutions of several regional organizations, including the Organization of American States (OAS), the Council of Europe (CoE), and the African Union (AU), as well as their member states, reinforcing the belief that the right is fundamental and should generally be protected, with rare exceptions, on an international level. Individual states vary on their interpretation and length to which they guarantee the freedom, though a majority include it within their legal code and consider it a human right, with few nations serving as notable exceptions. The right to freedom of religion is protected under international human rights law, appearing in various international documents and treaties, most markedly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. The United Nations considers “that religion or belief, for anyone who professes either, is one of the fundamental elements in his conception of life and that freedom of religion or belief should be fully respected and guaranteed” (UN General Assembly 1981, 1). The organization expects its member states to promote and encourage universal respect and observance of the right, stating that the points set forth relating to freedom of religion in the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance “shall be accorded in national legislation in such a manner that everyone shall be able to avail himself of such rights and freedoms in practice”, with few exceptions: “Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (UN General Assembly 1981, 3). With 193 Member States, the UN is the world’s largest intergovernmental organization, pushing for the protection of the right to freedom of religion internationally and its recognition as a fundamental human right by all nations under international human rights law. The Organization of American States (OAS) is an international organization that brings together “all 35 independent states of the Americas and constitutes the main political, juridical, and social governmental forum in the [Western] Hemisphere” (“OAS: Who We Are” 2023). It is committed to upholding freedom of religion, with the Declaration of the OAS General Secretariat on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion or Belief reaffirming the organization’s belief that “guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief continues to be a fundamental responsibility of States” as it is “essential to understand that religious freedom or belief as a human right is, in turn, linked to the defense of the rights of all individuals and groups, in all areas” (“Declaration of the OAS General Secretariat.” 2023, 1). Currently, every country in the Americas includes a provision protecting freedom of religion in their constitution, though the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom raised concern for indigenous peoples in Latin America in their 2023 annual report: “Indigenous peoples in Latin America have long faced a series of collective and individual threats to the full enjoyment of their religious freedom and related rights” (75). It also focused on Cuba and Nicaragua as countries of particular concern, citing the Nicaraguan regime’s “campaign of harassment and severe persecution against the Catholic Church by targeting clergy, eliminating Church-affiliated organizations, and placing restrictions on religious observances” and the Cuban government’s tight control over religious “activity through surveillance, harassment of religious leaders and laypeople, forced exile, fines, and ill treatment of religious prisoners of conscience”. (20-30). The report did not note other concern or violation of freedom of religion in the Americas region in other states. The right is generally protected across America and is considered a fundamental human right. Article 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted by the African Union in 1981, states that “freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion shall be guaranteed” and that “no one may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these freedoms” (Organization of African Unity 1981, 4). The African Union is a continental union consisting of 55 member states, with a majority including provisions protecting freedom of religion in their constitutions, though there are a few countries where it is very limited or violated. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom highlighted Eritrea, Mauritania, Nigeria, Central African Republic, and Egypt for a lack of religious freedom, citing instances of religious persecution and punishment for certain religious minorities (“2023 Annual Report” 2023, 11). The report did not find any serious violations in other African nations, with most prohibiting religious discrimination and allowing individuals to practice their religion. The Council of Europe (CoE) also holds freedom of religion to be a fundamental right, explicitly stating so in Article 9 in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The document states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance” noting few exceptions as “are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others” (European Court of Human Rights 1950, 11). With the end of the Cold War, virtually all of Europe has an unprecedented general freedom of religion guaranteed by their constitution (Juviler 2003, 859). However, there have been concerns with rising Islamophobic legislation, including the banning of particular religious clothing like burqas (U.S. Department of State 2022, 6). Though practices vary, the freedom is held in high standard and seen as a core human right. The Asia Pacific Forum (APF) is a regional grouping of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) that focuses on monitoring, promoting, and protecting human rights in Asia and the Pacific. It is a coalition of 25 independent national human rights institutions that aim to uphold human rights, including freedom of religion, educating and reaffirming the “purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations with regard to the promotion and encouragement of respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion” (Asia Pacific Forum 2013, 205). The Asia Pacific Forum notes that unlike other regions in the world, “there is no regional court or protection system in the Asia Pacific that people can turn to when their human rights are abused,” though they can help “shape laws, policies, practices and attitudes that create strong, fair and inclusive communities” to combat this (“About the Asia Pacific Forum 2023). Several countries in Asia were listed in the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s annual report on freedom of religion as countries of particular concern. It noted Afghanistan, China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, among others (“2023 Annual Report” 2023, 11). Though most states in the continent protect freedom of religion in their legal code, there is quite a discrepancy in their practices and extent to which they safeguard it. The report noted that Vietnamese authorities “intensified their control and persecution of religious groups—especially unregistered, independent communities” while the Saudi government “continued to systematically deny non-Muslims the ability to build houses of worship or worship in public” and create anti-blasphemy and apostasy laws (“2023 Annual Report” 2023, 38-46). It further states that China “has become increasingly hostile toward religion, implementing campaigns to ‘sinicize’ Islam, Tibetan Buddhism, and Christianity to remove alleged ‘foreign influences’” and in Afghanistan the government of the “Taliban also either actively targets, discriminates against, or outright denies the existence of many vulnerable religious minorities” (“2023 Annual Report” 2023, 12-16). On an international level, there is a belief that freedom of religion is a fundamental human right that should be protected, with few exceptions. Intergovernmental organizations, which a majority of the countries in the world belong to, such as the UN, the AU, and the CoE, reaffirm the importance of the right and push its members to uphold it. On an individual state by state basis, however, the amount of protection and importance the right receives varies. The majority of countries include provisions safeguarding freedom of religion in the constitution, but their rules and regulations differ, as well as their practices. Overall, the right to freedom of religion is generally regarded as an intrinsic and fundamental by a large number of states and other actors. References: “About the Asia Pacific Forum.” 2023. Asia Pacific Forum. Accessed July 4. https://www.asiapacificforum.net/about/. “Annual Report” 2023. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/2023%20Annual%20Report.pdf Asia Pacific Forum. 2013. Human Rights Education: A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions. Asia Pacific Forum National Human Rights Institutions. https://apf- prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/resource_file/2019_HRE_Manual_for_NHRIs.pdf?AWS AccessKeyId=AKIA57J6V557ISASX34R&Signature=NXImyA3dX%2FFHi6h08a uFkAwzEnE%3D&Expires=1688487584. “Declaration of the OAS General Secretariat.” 2023. Organization of American States. General Secretariat https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-008/23. European Court of Human Rights. 1950. European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf. Juviler, Peter. 2003. Freedom and Religious Tolerance in Europe . University of Michigan. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1316&context=mjil. “OAS: Who We Are.” 2023. Organization of American States. https://www.oas.org/en/about/who_we_are.asp. Organization of African Unity. 1981. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/36390-treaty-0011.pdf. UN General Assembly. 1981. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-elimination UN General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 217 A (III), https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf U.S. Department of State. 2022. France 2022 International Religious Freedom Report. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/441219-FRANCE-2022- INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf.
Freedom of Religion		While the degree to which people are allowed to express themselves religiously varies in different countries, the importance that religion has in people’s lives also varies grately. Over half the people in countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, and Romania say that religion is very important in their lives. However, in countries like the Baltics, Scandinavia, and Western Europe, fewer than 1 in 5 people say that religion is important to them (How Religious Commitment Varies by Country Among People of all Ages). Many people have different ways in which they express themselves religiously. A survey done by the Pew Research Center found that in Europe, “about four-in-ten adults in the average country surveyed say that they attend religious services at least weekly.” They go on to say that “Buddhists and Hindus do not observe weekly holy days, and weekly communal worship services are not necessarily a part of their religious traditions” and that “countries in sub-Saharan Africa with predominantly Christian or Muslim populations tend to have the world’s highest levels of regular worship attendance; in the average country in that region, 79% of adults say they attend services weekly.” Daily prayer is one way that people express themselves religiously: “fully 96% of Afghans and 87% of Iranians report praying daily, reflecting a global pattern of high levels of prayer in Muslim-majority countries” (How Religious Commitment Varies by Country Among People of all Ages). This relates to freedom of religion because people are able to choose the way they want to express themselcces in this manner. For example, some people may choose to attend religious services, while others don’t practice religion in that manner. In a 2009 Gallup Survey, 65% of Americans said that religion was an important part of their daily lives. This is a significant contrast from other countries, with Spain being 49%, Canada at 42%, France at 30%, the United Kingdom at 27%, and Sweden at 17% (Religion in the United States). Among Americans, their choice to identify with religion varies greatly. 29% of Americans think that they’re a part of a minority group because of their religious beliefs and 70.6% of Americans affiliate with Christianity (Religion’s Role in Public Life). While some people may feel they’re a part of a minority group, the United States is less restrictive in regards to people’s ability to practice their religion than other countries. According to the Pew Research Center, “government restrictions on religion in the U.S. are nowhere near as extensive as those of countries such as China, Iran and Burma. Likewise, the U.S. has much lower levels of social hostilities to religion than countries like India, Pakistan and Nigeria” (Henne, 2015). One example of the religious restrictions in China is that “Christians are allowed to worship in ‘official churches’ registered with supervisory government agencies responsible for Protestantism and Catholicism” (10 Things to Know about China’s Policies on Religion). “3. How Religious Commitment Varies by Country among People of All Ages.” 2018. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. June 13, 2018. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-among-people-of-all-ages/. “Religion in the United States.” Pressbooks.howardcc.edu, April https://pressbooks.howardcc.edu/soci101/chapter/17-5-religion-in-the-united-states/. Center, Pew Research. 2024. “1. Religion’s Role in Public Life.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. March 15, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/03/15/religions-role-in-public-life/. Henne, Peter. n.d. “How the U.S. Compares with the Rest of the World on Religious Restrictions.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/03/25/how-the-u-s-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world-on-religious-restrictions/. Pew Research Center. 2023. “10 Things to Know about China’s Policies on Religion.” Pew Research Center. October 23, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/23/10-things-to-know-about-chinas-policies-on-religion/.
Freedom of the Press		In 2017, Freedom House estimated that only 13% of the world’s population lived in states with free press (Abramowitz, 2017, 8). Thirteen percent is low and creates little incentive for less-free media states to improve media freedoms (Abramowitz, 2017, 16). 45% of the population lived in states with ‘not free’ press, while 42% of the population lived in states with ‘partly free’ press (Abramowitz, 2017, 8). Freedom House defines free press on a spectrum, with free press being an environment that allows the right to seek and distribute information without interruption or censorship. These can take many forms, such as arresting or threatening journalists, being influenced by the government (monetarily or otherwise), or restricting access to news sources (i.e., disabling the internet) (Repucci, 2019) . The presence of these elements decreased media in the state and hinders citizens’ ability to get impartial information. In 2017, free states were, generally, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Partially free states were prominent in South America, Southern Africa, Western Africa, Oceania, Central America, and Central and Eastern Europe, with the additions of India and Mongolia (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Not free states were common in Eastern Africa and Asia (Abramowitz, 2017, 14-15). Freedom of expression is called for and agreed upon in many international conventions: the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 19, American Convention on Human Rights Article 13, and the African Charter of Human Rights Article 9 (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2). The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly calls out freedom of the press (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2; Stier, 2015, 1274) . These conventions and declarations pave the way for freedom of the press in many states, though it is recognized that freedom of expression may be limited, mostly for the protection of something or someone. Exceptions, according to the Human Rights Committee, must be provided by law to safeguard a legitimate interest and must also be necessary to secure this interest (ARTICLE 19, 2004, 2). Free: Though credited with some of the freest press in the world in 2017, freedom of the press in the United States looked to be declining (Abramowitz, 2017, 1). Factors such as media polarization, mistrust, undermining, and profit-motivated media coupled with changing business models were contributing factors in this decline, though constitutional checks prevented even more decline (Abramowitz, 2017, 1). Additionally, recent presidents’ actions have trended toward more restrictive of the media (Abramowitz, 2017, 1-2). Despite the Freedom Act of 2015, media monitoring is prominent in the United States, as well as other free media states such as Canada, Britain, Germany, and France, and becomes more prominent with less free media (Abramowitz, 2017, 16). Partly Free: In partly free media states, generally, media is not explicitly restricted or censored, but actions taken by the government have demonstrated restrictions. In Hungary, pro-government media was monetarily rewarded by Hungary’s government was only selling stories to specific media outlets (Abramowitz, 2017, 6; Banks, 2020) . These actions “unfairly starved independent media channels” while publicly funding channels that were politically advantageous to the government (Banks, 2020) . This practice began after Hungary adopted a new constitution in 2011 and the incident was taken up for investigation in accordance with the ECHR in 2020 after multiple complaints (Banks, 2020) . Brazil used five journalists’ trials as a warning toward journalists and potential stories rather than explicitly restricting the media (Abramowitz, 2017, 21). The five journalists were taken to court for 50 counts exposing the high earnings of judiciary members but placed the trials all over the country (Abramowitz, 2017, 21). This action imposed a large monetary and temporal cost on the journalists, causing journalists to think twice about a story before publishing. Not Free: The ten states with the least amount of press freedom are North Korea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Crimea, Eritrea, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Syria (Abramowitz, 2017, 9). States such as these have restrictive media guidelines, such as media monitoring or elimination. In many states, from Ethiopia to Zimbabwe to Turkey, media has been shut down at crucial political moments such as elections or protests (Abramowitz, 2017, 5, 9, 20). Turkey is a state with constitutional protection of media, though it has laws that contradict this protection and criminalize reporting on some topics (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 599). In Egypt, the military influences the media, preventing private, independent media (Abramowitz, 2017, 17). In Syria, many journalists are exiled, and many surrounding states make it difficult for them to continue their work (Abramowitz, 2017, 4). In Venezuela, some actions against the media have consisted of preventing international journalists from covering a planned protest and reacting with violence when some chose to cover it anyway (Abramowitz, 2017, 13). Russia and China are restrictive of their press with both censorship and market influence, but they take advantage of the freedoms in the United States and France to try to influence perceptions in these areas for their state’s political gain (Repucci & Slipowitz, 2021; Stier, 2015, 1275) . Russia takes similar actions with its Russian-speaking neighbors, especially Ukraine, for similar reasons, and has begun to try to influence the EU as well (Abramowitz, 2017, 9). China is also restrictive due to its very strict penalties and monitoring for criticism, while also preventing its people from giving information to outside sources (Abramowitz, 2017, 16). Exceptions Exceptions to freedom of the press vary between states. Pew Research Center found that Americans are most likely to accept all types of free speech and people in most states are content with protecting speech against the government under freedom of expression, even if it may cause instability (Poushter & Givens, 2015) . However, this acceptance varies by region; there is over 90% support for this idea in North American and Europe, while there is less support, around 70% in the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa (Wike & Simmons, 2015) . Exceptions begin to appear beyond these boundaries (Wike & Simmons, 2015) . For instance, support for being able to say offensive words to minorities or about religious beliefs is below 50% in all regions of the world surveyed except for the United States and Canada (Wike & Simmons). Exceptions against freedom of the press with the most support are comments that are sexually explicit or call for violent protests. Each of these types has less than 40% support to be a protected form of speech (Wike & Simmons, 2015) . Defamation: Most common in media is defamation law, in which strictness varies between states based on the written laws, strictness of implementation, burden of proof, and punishment (Botsford). Internationally, defamation’s burden of proof is typically just the intent to make the statement, not that it was made in bad faith (Botsford). In most places, defamation is a criminal offense, though there are some advocates for a change toward a civil offense (Botsford). Defamation charges are somewhat common with just over half of EU states convicting a journalist of defamation between 2010 and 2015, though imprisonment was rare, and some states have such laws but do not enforce them (Botsford). Investigation for defamation can be very disruptive due to the seizure of personal and professional assets, preventing further journalism at the time (Botsford). Libel and insult charges against Russian Mikhail Afanasyev resulting from a piece he authored were quite disruptive to the media in the region (Botsford; Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . In the piece, Afanasyev claimed that Alexander Zlotnikov, who had testified to a court that Afanasyev had attempted to record a police arrest and was obstructive while doing so, was lying and immoral, among other things (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . A defamation claim was immediately filed against Afanasyev, and a four-month investigation commenced (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . Despite his eventual acquittal, the Russian investigation into Mikhail Afanasyev ruined media in his region of Siberia, as he was the only independent source (Botsford). This instance was not the first time he was targeted for his work at the Novy Fokus (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2013) . Turkey also strictly implements defamation law, so that it not only is affecting journalists but those in other professions as well (Botsford). Italy, a partly free media state, routinely uses these laws and imprisons journalists for libel – the only EU state to do so (Botsford). On the other hand, Ireland and the United Kingdom, free media states, have repealed their libel laws, and South Africa, a partly free media state, has taken steps to eliminate the law as well (Botsford). References: Abramowitz, M. (2017, Apr.). Freedom of the press 2017. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28_1.pdf ARTICLE 19. (2004, Feb.). Briefing note on international and comparative defamation standards. https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/analysis/defamation-standards.pdf Banks, M. (2020, Oct. 26). EU investigating whether Hungarian state aid spending is undermining media freedom. https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/eu-investigating-whether-hungarian-state-aid-spending-is-undermining-media-freedom Botsford, P. (n.d.). Word crimes – defamation and freedom of expression. International Bar Association. https://www.ibanet.org/article/9E40E124-20BB-4533-A919-C7B5345F34C4 Committee to Protect Journalists. (2013, Apr. 15). Online journalist in Siberia faces defamation charges. https://cpj.org/2013/04/online-journalist-in-siberia-faces-defamation-char/ Poushter, J. & Givens, G. (2015, Nov. 18). Where the world sees limits to free speech. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/18/where-the-world-sees-limits-to-free-speech/ Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the media 2019. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral. Repucci, S. & Slipowitz, A. (2021). Freedom in the world 2021. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege Stier, S. (2015). Democracy, autocracy and the news: the impact of regime type on media freedom. Democratization, 22(7), 1273-1295. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.964643 Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights. International Studies Quarterly 53, 595-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00548.x Wike, R. & Simmons, K. (2015, Nov. 18). 2. The boundaries of free speech and a free press. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/2-the-boundaries-of-free-speech-and-a-free-press/
Freedom of the Press		Freedom House called freedom of the press “a cornerstone of global democracy” and others have deemed it crucial (Abramowitz, 2017, 2; Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 595). But does that mean regime affects how this right is exercised? Regime affects the institutions and framework around the media and freedom of the press (Stier, 2015, 1273) . Democracy, government legitimacy, and free press are generally connected as there are easier ways to criticize, advocate for change, and hold leaders accountable (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 596). Research backs this up. In a study of states from 1948- 1995, 82% of democracies had free press and 88% of autocracies had controlled press; The correlation between free or controlled media and regime type is 0.74, a moderately strong score (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 602, 619). A 1993- 2010 study found a correlation between these variables as well (Stier, 2015, 1273) . Most argue that this is due to the increased legitimacy, transparency, and accountability – all things necessary in a healthy democracy. There were notable exceptions in these trends: Mexico, Uganda, and Turkey. Democracies Turkey, a multi-party democracy for almost 70 years, ranked highly on Freedom House’s democracy scale from 1993- 2004, has heavily censored media since a 2016 coup attempt (Repucci, 2019) . News outlets have closed, the internet has become restrictive and government-censored, and traditional media platforms have become unavailable (Repucci, 2019) . There is still local press, but accessibility has declined, requiring the use of workarounds, such as VPNs and social media rather than traditional local news sources, such as newspapers (Repucci, 2019) . In Germany, board members of news outlet ZDF were supportive of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, but their Editor-in-Chief was not (Stier, 2015, 1277) . ZDF is Germany’s national public broadcaster and is “a leading source of information,” providing a comprehensive view of the state (Facts and figures about ZDF, 2021) . The board did not renew his contract, likely because he was critical of the government and a talented investigator, leading him to uncover instances that were not politically advantageous for the CDU. This claim that an Editor-in-Chief did not have a contract renewed for holding different political views isn’t great for the free press narrative, especially when nearly half of the council works for the government (Facts and figures 2020, 2020) . Autocracies Autocracies control media to ensure the survival of the regime. Thus, there are two prevailing media policies in autocratic states with controlled press: prevent discussion regarding the exercise of power and strictly control opposition organizations and efforts (Stier, 2015, 1277) . Under these policies, controlled media can also help promote the government’s rule and agenda (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 601). There are, however, instances of strategic censorship, in which autocracies allow minimal elements of media freedom. These policies have a similar goal as one-party states holding elections – achieving a look of democracy (Stier, 2015, 1278) . When this control is relinquished too quickly, it can have unintended consequences. In a well-known instance, Mikhail Gorbachev implemented freer press and expression in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s with his glasnost policy (Stier, 2015, 1279) . Under the communist autocracy in place and with significantly fewer media regulations, this new freedom aided a rapid decline within the state as government mismanagement became revealed (Stier, 2015, 1279) . Generally, free press happens accidentally; this was the case in Mexico and Uganda. In the 1980s , Uganda media began asserting independence against the US in a partisan way against the new government, prompting a “media war” (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 601). In the mid- 1980s , the Moseveni government came into power. This government was liked better by the media, but when the new Moseveni government began human rights violations, the media still reported it. Moseveni tried to shut them down, but the media retained their independence (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 601). Under Mexican autocratic rule in the 1990s , the media began to criticize the government and assert independence (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 614). This trend accelerated in the late 1990s with more aggressive media tactics, with journalists putting themselves at risk (Whitten-Woodring, 2009, 614). On the other hand, Stier ( 2015, 1280) acknowledges that long-lasting, autocratic regimes, such as monarchies, have the benefit of being prosperous and well-liked. These characteristics, along with a strong military presence, limit the chance of being overthrown and can lead to more press freedoms (Stier, 2015, 1280) . Accordingly, autocratic characteristics that are associated with fewer media freedoms are communism and one-party systems (Stier, 2015, 1281) . References: Abramowitz, M. (2017, Apr.). Freedom of the press 2017. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28_1.pdf Facts and figures 2020. (2020). ZDF. https://www.zdf.de/zdfunternehmen/factsandfigures-100.html Facts and figures about ZDF (2021, April. 20). ZDF. https://www.zdf.de/zdfunternehmen/factsandfigures-100.html Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the media 2019. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-and-media/2019/media-freedom-downward-spiral. Stier, S. (2015). Democracy, autocracy and the news: the impact of regime type on media freedom. Democratization, 22(7), 1273-1295. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.964643 Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). Watchdog or lapdog? Media freedom, regime type, and government respect for human rights. International Studies Quarterly 53, 595-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00548.x ZDF. (2021, Aug. 21). Wikipedia. Retrieved Sept. 7, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZDF
Freedom of the Press		Generally, exceptions to freedom of the press have been rare in the USA. In Britain, somewhat more relaxed libel laws leave organs of the media more open to suits. However, both consider rare exceptions to these tendencies (Shapiro 2015). In both nations, there are arguments to push more towards the other country’s position. In the United Kingdom, libel law was used to take a U.S. author to court for their writing. This form of “libel tourism” is common due to the ability to sue writers and the press for libel in the UK, increasing the odds of the prosecution winning (Shapiro 2015). The UK’s successful suing of the author in this libel case caused the United states to create Rachel’s Law. This prevented the upholding of the UK ruling in the United States (Glanville 2008). This law in particular is a standard example of the U.S. maintaining greater protections of freedom of the press. In more recent years, the UK has moved closer to stricter libel laws, similar to the United States. The High Court in London dismissed the complaint that journalist Carole Cadwalladr defamed businessman and pro-Brexit movement founder Arron Banks, marking a huge victory for public-interest reporting. This 2022 case served as a major win for stricter exceptions to freedom of the press (“UK: Journalist’s Victory in Libel Case Endorses Media Freedom” 2022). In the case of the Dominion Voting System versus Fox News, libel laws were essential for the Fox defamation lawsuit (Peltz and Riccardi 2023). The court papers even expressed a profound concern about the broadcaster's actions, likely prompting the settlement money Fox eventually gave to Dominion (Peltz and Riccardi 2023). This demonstrates a certain level of ability to meet the standard for libel/defamation suits in the U.S. For most countries, arguments against freedom of speech and of the press can be broken down into national security, fake news and misinformation, privacy & ethics, sensationalism for profit, and hate speech and incitement (“The Ongoing Challenge to Define Free Speech” 2023). The complicated and ongoing discussion over how to strike a balance between these issues and press freedom protection differs from nation to nation and reflects various cultural, legal, and political settings. Lately, societies have seen the real world consequences of these freedoms and the exceptions to them. However, Informing the public, promoting democracy, and holding governments responsible all depend on a free press. In order to prevent suffocating free speech, encouraging censorship, or smothering dissenting voices, restrictions on press freedom must be carefully considered. Because technology has grown at a pace too rapid for regulation and societal understanding keep up, it has led to issues with misinformation interfering with governmental processes. Deepfakes have been among these developing concerns. Political experts worry that in order to influence an election, political strategists may create attack commercials utilizing computer-generated "deepfake" films and audio, which they may then release at the last minute (McKenzie 2023). France has made media regulations to aid in preventing election misinformation. French officials urge news organizations and the public to refrain from sharing any information during the media blackout period required by electoral regulations. These electoral regulations are a noticeable exception that were put in place after Macron’s emails were leaked in a hack prior to the 2017 election. There is now a 44 hour blackout of media before all major French elections (“France Doubles Down on Countering Foreign Interference Ahead of Key Elections” 2021). Bibliography “France Doubles Down on Countering Foreign Interference Ahead of Key Elections.” 2021. Accessed October 27, 2023. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/france-doubles-down- countering-foreign-interference-ahead-key-elections-0. Glanville, Jo. 2008. “‘Rachel’s Law’ Protects Free Expression.” Index on Censorship. April 2, 2008. https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2008/04/rachels-law-protects-free-expression/. McKenzie, Bryan. 2023. “Is That Real? Deepfakes Could Pose Danger to Free Elections.” UVA Today, August 24, 2023. https://news.virginia.edu/content/real-deepfakes-could-pose-danger-free-elections. Peltz, Jennifer, and Nicholas Riccardi. 2023. “How Election Lies, Libel Law Were Key to Fox Defamation Suit.” AP News, April 18, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-explainer-trump-fbd401a951905879d837a8860b3bec5e. Shapiro, Ari. 2015. “On Libel And The Law, U.S. And U.K. Go Separate Ways.” NPR, March 21, 2015. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways. “The Ongoing Challenge to Define Free Speech.” Accessed October 6, 2023. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/. “UK: Journalist’s Victory in Libel Case Endorses Media Freedom.” 2022. Article 19. June 13, 2022. https://www.article19.org/resources/uk-journalists-victory-endorses-media-freedom/.
Privacy Rights		The right to privacy has been interpreted in various ways. The EU has strict legislation regarding data privacy and the Council of Europe has outlined in Article 8(1) of the ECHR ( 1950) the right to privacy in the four spheres of family life, private life, communication, and the home (Wolford, n.d.). On the other hand, the United States has outlined protections from government interference in the private sphere in the Bill of Rights, has comparatively less (& less encompassing) legislation on the issue, and has relied on the courts to protect people from private entities and in the home (U.S. Constitution; 1787, Amendment 4; Privacy, n.d.). These differences result in a more consistent application of privacy rights in Europe compared to the United States. In the home, Europeans have had a safe, private space since 1950 (ECHR, 1950, Art. 8(1)). In the United States, this right wasn’t concrete until long after the Supreme Court began ruling on the privacy cases in the mid- 1960s (Privacy, n.d.). However, it remains that Americans have a higher expectation of privacy in the home than in a public area (Electronic Surveillance, n.d.). In an extreme example of lack of privacy in the home, Albanians working for the Soviet government did not own anything in their homes – the state owned it all (Lubonja, 2001, 239). Exceptions to privacy at home include police entering with and, in some cases, without a warrant. New Zealand also utilizes court-issued warrants to prevent officials from entering the home, but if officials are actively preventing a crime, enforcing a law, making an arrest, or aiding in an emergency, they do not need a warrant (Community Law, n.d.). Within the European Union, this warrant can come from a court within any part of the EU’s jurisdiction. The European Evidence Warrant (EEW) allows a warrant issued to gather evidence to be valid across the EU and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) applies this principle to the arrest of criminals taking exploiting the open borders within the EU (European evidence warrant, 2006; European arrest warrant, n.d.). EEWs can also be used to get cell phone records (The European evidence warrant, 2006) . In the United States, a customer can ask for those records to be turned over to authorities or authorities can use a subpoena (FCC 2019) . The Prüm Convention demonstrates another aspect of inter-European collaboration in crime-solving efforts, leading to interesting implications for data privacy. Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and Spain all signed this treaty, to which other nations can opt-in, in an effort to increase cross-border security (Prüm Convetion, 2005) . At the roots, it allows the parties to ask each other for help solving crimes by sharing data from each nation’s crime database (Walsch, 2008, 86). By not creating an international crime database, each nation is required to ask other nations for the needed data (Walsch, 2008, 86). This method allows the shared data to be governed by each nation’s specific data privacy laws, but it lands in an unregulated grey area after the data transfer (Walsch, 2008, 85). Differences in privacy law become clear when looking at what personal data is collected from people. Some states collect DNA in all criminal cases, others only when the person has been in prison for over two years, and others do not collect DNA at all (Walsch, 2008, 86). In the context of solving international crime, these differences mean some states tend to be more helpful than others. References: Community Law. (n.d.). Entry powers: When the police can come into your home. Retrieved Sept. 21, 2021, from https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-31-police-powers/entry-powers-when-the-police-can-come-into-your-home/entry-without-a-warrant-to-prevent-or-investigate-crimes/ Electronic Surveillance. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance European arrest warrant. (n.d.). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/european-arrest-warrant_en European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe. Nov. 4, 1950. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf European evidence warrant. (2006, June 1). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/PRES_06_168 European evidence warrant, The: The acquisition and admissibility of foreign evidence. (n.d.). Academy of European Law. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2021, from https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=d241949ae554074b1e14fd12b7f05d3f5d1e38df00162723613600&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=121538 Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2019, Dec. 30). Protecting your privacy: Phone and cable records. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/protecting-your-privacy Lubonja, F. (2001). Privacy in a totalitarian regime. Social Research 68(1), 237-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40971449 Privacy. (n.d.). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy Prüm Convention. AT-BE-DE-ES-FR-LU-NL. May 27, 2005. 10900/05. https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/sites/default/files/docs/body/prumtr.pdf U.S. Constitution. Amendment IV. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Walsch, C. (2008, Nov. 9). Europeanization and democracy: Negotiating the Prum Treaty and the Schengen III Agreement. Politicka Misao, XVL(5), 81-90. Wolford, B. (n.d.). What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law? GDPR EU. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2021, from https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/
Privacy Rights		Rhoda Howard and Jack Donnelly ( 1986) describe six regime types: liberal, minimal, traditionalist, communist, corporatist (authoritarian), and developmental. When comparing regime type to the ‘valuation of privacy,’ liberal regimes are ranked highly, and minimal regimes are ranked very highly (Howard & Donnelly, 1986, 814). The other regime types, all communitarian regimes rather than individualistic, were ranked low or very low regarding privacy (Howard & Donnelly, 1986, 814). At their cores, communitarian regimes do not have privacy because it can be argued, as Howard and Donnelly ( 1986, 211) do, that the allowance of freedoms may lead to self-destruction. Thus, privacy is ignored (Howard & Donnelly, 1986, 211). Fatos Lubonja agrees with this sentiment, writing that privacy did not exist in Albania under the totalitarian regime, and cites his experience in Albanian prisons as an example (Lubonja, 2001) . He also admitted to self-censorship in the private diaries which originally got him arrested, supposing many others had censored themselves in the same way (Lubonja, 2001, 247). Resources Howard, R.E., & Donnelly, J. ( 1986, Sept.) Human dignity, human rights, and political regimes. The American Political Science Review 80(3), 801-817. https://doi.org/10. 2307/ 1960539 Lubonja, F. ( 2001) . Privacy in a totalitarian regime. Social Research 68(1), 237-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4097 1449
Privacy Rights		The right to privacy is expressed in many places: Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( 1948) , Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( 1996) , Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) ( 2009) , and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) ( 1950) . Nationally, this right has been cited in the 1988 Brazil Constitution and United States case law (derived from the US Constitution). In India, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2017 that the right to privacy for all people falls under Article 21, which provides the “protection of life and personal liberty” (McCarthy, 2017; Mahaprata & Choudhary, 2017) . However, many exceptions to privacy are also listed alongside the right to privacy in these supreme documents, despite the belief in its inviolability. Article 8(2) of the ECHR provides that privacy interference can only occur in instances “of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Article 7 of the CRFEU can be breached by a search or arrest warrant issued by any EU state (European arrest warrant, n.d.; European evidence warrant, 2006) . In Article 5 Sections X-XII, the Brazilian Constitution outlines the right to privacy in areas related to private life, the home, and correspondence. These sections also clearly outline exceptions; Section XI recognizes that officials can enter a home “in cases of flagrante delicto, disaster or rescue, or, during the day, with a court order,” and Section XII allows criminal proceedings to methodically breach this privacy. In the United States, privacy zones – derived from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments in Griswold v. Connecticut ( 1965) in conjunction with the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment – have extended privacy to Americans in various ways (Privacy, n.d.). Again, a court-issued search or arrest warrant may breach this right to privacy, especially in the home. Data Privacy The US has very little data privacy due to a lack of legislation and regard. Most data regulation is due to compliance with the 2018 implementation of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, which applies to any company collecting any data on European citizens or companies with a large number of customers based in Europe (Wolford, n.d.). On the other hand, the Brazilian Supreme Court extended these Article 5 protections to data privacy in 2020 (Bioni & Monteiro, 2020) . Additionally, New Zealand’s Information Privacy Principles (IPP) in Article 22 of the Privacy Act 2020 protect data collection, but also provides some exceptions in IPP 11 and 12. Relationships In 2018, the Indian Supreme Court declared part of Section 377 unconstitutional against Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution (Rai, 2018) . This ruling allowed those in LGBT relationships privacy in the home, but again, this privacy was not granted in public spaces (Rai, 2018) . Similarly, the right to a private relationship went through the courts in the United States. First, it was granted to interracial couples in 1967 through Loving v. Virginia ( 1967) and then to same-sex couples through Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. In Brazil, relationships are protected under Article 5(X), which states “personal intimacy, private life, honor and reputation are inviolable, guaranteeing the right to compensation for pecuniary or moral damages resulting from the violation thereof” (Brazil Constitution, 1988) . Communication Private communication is protected under Article 5(XII) of the Brazilian Constitution ( 1988) . In the United States, the right to private communication became convoluted with the 2001 USA PATRIOT ACT, which authorized the interception and disclosure of communication under certain circumstances. References: Bioni, B.R. & Monteiro, R.L. (2020, June 9). A landmark ruling in Brazil: Paving the way for considering data protections as an autonomous fundamental right. Future of Privacy Forum. https://fpf.org/blog/a-landmark-ruling-in-brazil-paving-the-way-for-considering-data-protection-as-an-autonomous-fundamental-right/ Brazil Constitution. (1988). https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017.pdf?lang=en Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Dec. 1, 2009. https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter Constitution of India. (1950). https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india European arrest warrant. (n.d.). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/european-arrest-warrant_en European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe. Nov. 4, 1950. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf European evidence warrant. (2006, June 1). European Commission. Retrieved Sept. 21, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/PRES_06_168
Privacy Rights		Worldwide A 2018 Deloitte survey has revealed that the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is having a positive international impact on the perception of data collection and storage even just six months after its implementation (Deloitte, 2018, 4). The GDPR has had a worldwide effect on privacy laws as it requires all companies which collect data on EU citizens to comply with the law, regardless of the location of their headquarters (Wolford, n.d.). At the most basic level, respondents felt companies have begun to care more about data protection (Deloitte, 2018, 6). Additionally, over 3 out of 4 respondents were aware of their rights under this law and some had already used this knowledge to alter what data companies were collecting about them (Deloitte, 2018, 13, 14, 19). On the other hand, 19% of those polled felt that organizations did not care about privacy (Deloitte, 2018, 6) and only 51% felt the law had put them in control of the personal data that companies have access to (Deloitte, 2018, 18). European Union In a 2019 European Union (including North Macedonia) study conducted a year after the implementation of the GDPR, the European Commission concurred with Deloitte in that the GDPR had made people more aware of their rights (Vandystadt & Voin, 2019) . However, only 20% of these respondents knew which authority was responsible for protecting privacy rights (Vandystadt & Voin, 2019; Awareness of the general data protection regulation, 2019) . United States In 2002, a Harris Poll found that 63% of respondents found the privacy legislation in place to be inadequate (EPIC, 2021) . In 2019, 75% of those surveyed felt the government should regulate companies and their use of personal data (Auxier, 2020) . In 2020, 79% of the population wanted national privacy legislation enacted (Auxier, 2020) . It is clear that over time, Americans have become more concerned about the use of their personal data, especially in the private sector (Auxier et al., 2019; Auxier, 2020) . Despite this fact, the United States has still not enacted sweeping privacy legislation at a national level. At the state level, California was the first state to enact privacy legislation in 2018, and at least nineteen other states have followed suit with the hope that it will signal the federal government to propose some sort of national privacy legislation for ease of compliance (Sabin, 2021) . However, Americans seem to be fine with either approach, with polls showing around 70% find their state government to be responsible for this issue and the same percent find the federal government to be responsible (Sabin, 2021) . New Zealand In 2012, the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner published a privacy study completed by UMR Research. This study found that 90% of people wanted the government to protect their data and be told by companies how their data was being used (Privacy Commissioner, 2012, 9). Interestingly, only 66% were concerned about the presence of their personal data online (Privacy Commissioner, 2012, 12). However, 88% of respondents wanted businesses to be punished if they were using data incorrectly, and 97% wanted the Privacy Commissioner to be able to reprimand companies if they were breaching the then enforceable 1993 Privacy Act (Privacy Commissioner, 2012, 23, 10). Since this study was published, the 1993 Privacy Act has been updated. Now, if an investigation reveals a breach of duty or misconduct, Article 96 of the Privacy Act 2020 requires the Commissioner to refer the matter to authorities, reflecting some of the public’s wants revealed in the 2012 poll. British Columbia In 2020, Canadian non-profit, Freedom of Information and Privacy Association or FIPA, worked with Ipsos and polled British Columbians surrounding their attitudes regarding privacy law. About half of them were unsure if the current laws were protective enough or admitted they thought current privacy laws were lacking (FIPA, 2020) . When asked about the transparency of Canadian companies, 50% felt companies were not open about their data practices and 75% felt that Canadian companies may send their data to non-Canadian companies (FIPA, 2020) . However, one-third of respondents from the same study knew British Columbian privacy law and its protections and three-quarters would like a public education initiative to teach these protections (FIPA, 2020) . References: Auxier, B. (2020, May 4). How Americans see digital privacy issues amid the COVID-19 outbreak. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/04/how-americans-see-digital-privacy-issues-amid-the-covid-19-outbreak/ Auxier, B., Rainie, L., Anderson, M., Perrin, A., Kumar, M., & Turner, E. (2019, Nov. 15). Americans and privacy: Concerned, confused, and feeling lack of control over their personal information. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ Awareness of the general data protection regulation – one year on. (2019). European Commission. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2222 Deloitte. (2018). A new era for privacy: GDPR six months on. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/risk/deloitte-uk-risk-gdpr-six-months-on.pdf Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). (2021). Public opinion on privacy. https://epic.org/privacy/survey/ FIPA. (2020, June 4). British Columbians want action on privacy protection: Polling results. https://fipa.bc.ca/2020-privacy-poll/ Privacy Act 2020, 2020 No. 31, (2021). https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0031/latest/LMS23223.html Privacy Commissioner. (2012, Apr.). UMR omnibus results. https://www.privacy.org.nz/assets/Files/Surveys/Privacy-Commission-UMR-Omni-Results-Apr-2012.pdf Sabin, S. (2021, Apr. 27). States are moving on privacy bills. Morning Consult. https://morningconsult.com/2021/04/27/state-privacy-congress-priority-poll/ Vandystadt, N., & Voin, M. (2019, July 24). GDPR shows results, but work needs to continue. European Commission. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/api/deliverable/download/file?deliverableId=69715 Wolford, B. (n.d.). What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law? GDPR EU. Retrieved Sept. 9, 2021, from https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/
Voting Rights and Suffrage		Voting culture, practices, and attitudes vary from state to state; cultural and political factors provide for distinct voting practices. Over half of all countries and territories require citizens to register to vote (Shumacher and Connaughton, 2020). Currently, twenty-one countries have compulsory voting. (Central Intelligence Agency). The first country to introduce compulsory voting (for men) was Belgium in 1892 in an amendment to Article 48 of its Constitution (“Compulsory Voting,” “Constitution of Belgium”). Each state that has compulsory voting implements it differently; some states write it into law and impose legal punishments for those who do not vote, while others may not write it into law but still impose sanctions on non-voters (Birch, 2009). Birch reports notable examples: “Singapore operates an unusual system that combines the removal of voting rights with a fine. Non-voters have their names automatically removed from the electoral register and must pay a fee to have them reinstated unless they can produce a ‘valid and sufficient’ reason for not having participated” (8); “Bolivians without a ‘suffrage certificate’ are forbidden from carrying out banking transactions or obtaining passports for 90 days following the election, and in Brazil such electors are in addition deprived by law of the right to state education. Until recently, non-voters in Greece were in theory unable to obtain driver’s licenses or passports” (9); “in Iran where ‘though voting is not compulsory, citizens may have to show the stamp impressed on voters’ identity cards in polling stations when applying for passports’” (Kauz qtd. in Birch, 2009, 5); in North Korea “‘although voting is not compulsory by law, the political prescriptions laid down in the party catechism prescribe it as the correct behaviour of every citizen. A simple negligence, let alone denial [sic] to take part in the polls, would be followed by harsh discrimination in the living and working sphere of the person concerned’” (Suh qtd. in Birch, 2009, 5). Birch additionally comments on the aspects of language that engender different interpretations of the right to vote in terms of compulsory voting. The specific term, “compulsory voting” in the English language has a somewhat negative connotation to it (in American English; Australians use the term happily) because compulsion implies being forced to do something one does not want to do. In other languages, specifically other European languages, the terms to describe compulsory voting imply that the practice is more of an obligation and duty than a coercion. Further, the Dutch language has a word, opkomstplicht, translating to “compulsory (or obligatory) attendance at the polls,” not compulsory (or obligatory) voting because once the voter is in the privacy of the voting booth, the state cannot do anything to stop them from casting a blank or invalid ballot (Birch, 2009, 2-3). Scholars have long disagreed over whether compulsory voting can be justified or not. Proponents of compulsory voting often argue that it increases voter turnout, therefore addressing issues of low and unequal voter turnout (Lever, 2010, 898). Additionally, supporters suggest it does not violate any rights in places where the ballot is secret (902). Opponents of compulsory voting argue that forcing people to exercise their rights is immoral; even if it is in one’s self interest to vote, people may disagree on what is in their self interest (906). There are also many unique methods of voting in different states around the world. In The Gambia, voters drop glass marbles into drums corresponding to each political party, a system designed in 1965 so citizens who could not read were still able to vote (Boylston, 2023). In certain areas in Switzerland, citizens will assemble once a year in the town square to vote on different issues by raising their hands for a simple majority, a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages when alpine communities were isolated from one another (Boylston, 2023). These types of practices are official and important to the political process, but they also serve to honor the history of the polity and celebrate their culture and community. Local elections are important in many places, but for some, especially those in autocratic and authoritarian regimes, local elections are the only way in which citizens can make their voices heard. Saudi Arabia does not hold national elections, so citizens must utilize municipal elections to contribute to the political system. Additionally, women were only granted the right to vote in these elections in 2015, and still face a multitude of barriers actually getting to the polls (Human Rights Watch, 2015). Despite the challenges, Saudi women are not giving up on fighting for their right to vote. In China, “two decades ago, leaders introduced village-level elections. Other innovations have followed, including approval and recall voting at the local level, public hearings, deliberative polls” (He and Warren, 2011, 269), though the regime seems to have no interest in democratizing at the national level. Chinese leaders have realized that allowing a controlled level of citizen participation provides them more legitimacy and allows them to maintain a social order while deflecting blame for tough decisions on to the electoral process (281). Nevertheless, “Chinese citizens are often insistently ingenious in organizing protests or engaging in public discussions in ways that work around official controls, while leveraging official rules and promises” (274). References: Birch, Sarah. 2009. Full Participation: A Comparative Study of Compulsory Voting. United Nations University Press. https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/sample-chapters/full_participation_web.pdf Boylston, Alex. 2023. “Five Unique Voting Practices Around the World.” Assembly Voting. https://assemblyvoting.com/blog/five-unique-voting-practices-around-the-world/ Central Intelligence Agency. “Field Listing- Suffrage.” CIA World Factbook. Accessed July 12, 2024. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/suffrage/ “Compulsory Voting.” International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Accessed July 24, 2024. https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout-database/compulsory-voting “Constitution of Belgium Amended to 1893.” World Constitutions Illustrated, HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzbe0041&i=8 He, Baogang, and Mark Warren. 2011. “Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development.” Perspectives on Politics, 9 no. 2 269-289. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41479652 Human Rights Watch. 2015. “Saudi Arabia: Landmark Elections for Women.” https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/11/saudi-arabia-landmark-elections-women?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkdO0BhDxARIsANkNcrcATEB-bUAv5AImLQlVXX8ealDKtpwSsB2BpnGeHHi5sMKwScnw64AaAsbzEALw_wcB Lever, Annabelle. 2010. “Compulsory Voting: A Critical Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science, 40 no. 4 897-915. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40930591 Shumacher, Shannon and Aidan Connaughton. 2020. “From voter registration to mail-in ballots, how do countries around the world run their elections?” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/30/from-voter-registration-to-mail-in-ballots-how-do-countries-around-the-world-run-their-elections/
Voting Rights and Suffrage		For several decades, the right to vote has been widely recognized as fundamental to fair, participatory government by a wide variety of international organizations and individual nations. The most prominent example comes from the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, which recognized that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity...to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors” (UN General Assembly 1966). In addition to international decrees and declarations identifying the importance of suffrage, international election monitoring and observation bodies exist around the world to protect citizens’ ability to vote and analyze countries’ electoral processes. There is strong global consensus that voting rights ought to be protected and are an essential element of successful representative democracies. In an American context, the United States Constitution explicitly protects citizens’ right to vote in Section II of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, Nineteenth Amendment, and Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its subsequent amendments also describe the right to vote as an “inherent constitutional right” (H.R. 4249, 91st Congress 1970). Additionally, prominent Supreme Court cases concerning voting rights such as, Reynolds v. Sims (1964) , Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) , and Kramer v. Union Free School District (1969) convey the fundamental nature of suffrage, pushing back against previous interpretations by the Court in Minor v. Happersett ( 1875) that “the Constitution...does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” (Supreme Court of the US 1875) and even older perceptions of voting as a privilege that had to be earned through societal metrics such as property ownership (Behrens 2004, 232). In Reynolds, the Court established that: "Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized." Harper concerned the constitutionality of poll taxes, and the Court reasoned that “wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned” (Supreme Court of the US 1966). Kramer similarly outlined that “any unjustified discrimination in determining who may participate in political affairs or in the selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of representative government” (Supreme Court of the US 1969). Both majority opinions in Reynolds and Harper also relied upon previous rationale established in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) that “though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless [the right to vote] is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights” (Supreme Court of the US 1886). In spite of these general beliefs legal precedent, certain members of society are still excluded from this fundamental right for reasons that are widely debated. Citizenship, for example, is often a requirement for suffrage. However, some countries, including certain local governments in the United States, allow noncitizens to vote in local elections after they have met certain residency requirements (Earnest). Felons are also often restricted from voting. In most countries with restrictions on felon voting, these penalties only take place when individuals are serving their prison sentence. In the United States, however, felon voting policy, like nearly all electoral policy, is a state decision. Restrictive felon voting policies are indicative to some experts that the United States has “failed to give the right to vote its true status as a fundamental right” (Behrens 275). In addition to the explicit prohibition of certain individuals from voting, unequal access to voting precincts and absentee drop-off locations as well as reduced voting hours and early voting periods also undermine the extent to which voting rights are protected around the world. Beyond restrictions of where citizens can vote, more explicit voter intimidation and election-related violence are employed even in countries that have signed on to international agreements outlining the importance of voting rights. Partisan gerrymandering, which the Supreme Court has defined as federally “nonjusticiable” in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), also dilutes the impact of certain citizens’ votes, undermining their ability to meaningfully exercise suffrage. Additionally, policies implemented to address voter fraud such as voter identification can also limit overall voting access. Critics of voter identification argue that requiring an often-times narrow list of permissible forms of identification puts an undue burden on citizens who are less likely to possess valid identification and constitute a modern form of a “poll tax” (Reeves). References: Behrens, Angela. "Voting-Not Quite a Fundamantal Right-A Look at Legal and Legislative Challenges to Felon Disfranchisement Laws." Minn. L. Rev. 89 (2004): 231. David C. Earnest, “Noncitizen Voting Rights: A Survey of an Emerging Democratic Norm,” 2003: http://citizenshiprightsafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Earnest_APSA_non-citizen-voting_2003.pdf Celina De León, “Political Scientist Keith Reeves '88 Reacts to Latest Ruling on Pa. Voter ID Law,” October 2nd, 2012: https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/political-scientist-keith-reeves-88-reacts-to-latest-ruling-pa-voter-id-law United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ccpr.pdf
Voting Rights and Suffrage		Electoral Rights and Europe Being a part of the European Union, a citizen of a European country has electoral power in European, national, regional, and municipal levels, though that can bring confusion as to whether or not a European citizen can participate in all of the elections of a particular EU country. EU citizens can vote for European Parliament and municipal elections in any EU country that they live in, though they cannot vote in elections for national parliament nor in regional elections ('Flash Eurobarometer 485 - European Union Citizenship and Democracy', 2020, p. 3). According to the Flash Eurobarometer 485 of July 2020, 71% European citizens were aware that a citizen of the EU that lives in their country has the right to vote for European Parliament (p. 5). 53% correctly stated that it is false that EU citizens living in their country can vote for national elections. A similar fifty percent split was found with European citizen’s belief of whether other EU citizens not from their country could vote for municipal and regional elections (p. 5). This data implies that most Europeans recognize their own and others’ right to vote, and that their voting is done in conjunction with European voters from different countries and cultures. This creates an experience of voting that is decidedly international, both in the power that a European has with their vote and also the effects they feel from the votes of others. Voting power is much more expansive than just their own locality, and is instead affecting a much larger trans-national federation. Later in the report, it shows that 63% of Europeans believe that a citizen of the US is justified in having the right to vote in the national elections of the country that the foreign citizen resides in (p. 6). The countries with the highest number of citizens who thought it justified was Ireland with 77% and Portugal with 74%. The lowest was Denmark with 40% and Sweden with 35%. With the countries with more citizens that believe it is justified like Portugal and Ireland, the data implies that the right to vote should be expansive and farther reaching, with less importance placed on nationality and more on where someone lives. Moreover, the citizen’s desire for a wider net of participation implies an experience of voting that is too restricted, and far away from being universal. With countries on the lower end with citizens that believe it to not be justified like Denmark and Sweden, the data implies that their conception of the right to vote is one that should be kept close with the ethnic and cultural natives of the country. The electoral net is too wide, and there would be a greater benefit if voting access were to be restrained and more controlled. This is further supported by the report later on which states that 49% of Danes and 56% of Swedes (the highest percentage) believe that European citizens should only vote in their country of origin (p. 21). References: Flash Eurobarometer 485: EU Citizenship and Democracy: https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2260_485_eng?locale=en
Voting Rights and Suffrage		The type of regime governing a state often influences the level of voting rights people have and the way in which those rights are exercised. According to the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), most countries regardless of regime type legally have universal suffrage, and most have an age requirement of over eighteen years old or a similar age (CIA). Some other common notes on suffrage statuses included a citizenship or residency year requirement and the exclusion of military and police force members from voting. These voting requirements and restrictions are not exclusive to democratic versus autocratic regimes. France, Mali, Thailand, and Afghanistan (countries encompassing a wide range of democracy levels) have universal suffrage for all citizens, but one must reside in the country for five years in order to become a citizen. However, countries leaning more autocratic commonly have longer or unknown residency requirements to become naturalized and therefore able to vote, such as Bhutan (ten years), Cambodia (seven years), China (unspecified residency and extremely difficult naturalization process), Oman (unknown), Kuwait (twenty years), and Venezuela (ten years except for applicants from a specified set of countries) (CIA). Additionally, more than half of all countries and territories have compulsory voting (Shumacher and Connaughton, 2020). There is no visible trend, however, about regime types that employ compulsory voting, as both democratic and autocratic states require it, including but not limited to Belgium, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Greece, North Korea, and Luxembourg (CIA). There is much scholarship on the status of voting rights for non-resident citizens in stable democracies, violent democracies, and autocracies. According to a study by Frontiers in Political Science, the more democratized a regime is, the more likely it will grant non-resident citizens’ enfranchisement (along with enfranchisement of other marginalized groups), and the more autocratic a regime is, the less likely it will do so (Umpierrez de Reguero, Yener-Roderburg, and Cartagena, 2021, 2). Additionally, they found that “when the diaspora favors (or is perceived to favor) the incumbency, then external voting rights are extended; otherwise, third, they are withheld or limited for nonresident citizens” (1). Nyblade cites Umpierrez de Reguero and builds on the discussion of emigrant voting rights as determined by regime type, contributing research on violent democracies specifically. Using Pérez-Armendáriz’s definition that violent democracies are states in which “manifold political actors regularly use violence to compete for power and make demands within established democratic institutional frameworks,” Nyblade argues that “domestic political actors that rely on violence may be particularly resistant to adopting extraterritorial voting rights, as emigrant voters are more difficult to target with violence (and indeed, may have become emigrants in order to flee violence)” (Nyblade, Iams Wellman, and Allen, 2022, 2). violent democracies When violent democracies do grant external voting rights, they may prevent them from exercising the right by neglecting to put into place actual systems to register and count their votes from abroad (15). A regime’s status as a violent democracy contributes to distinct voting dynamics and practices in the state. Rather than outright restricting the right to vote, violent democracies and autocracies will grant the right legally and then employ other tactics to ensure their desired electoral outcome. For instance, “elections may allow dictators to co-opt rivals, gain legitimacy, deter opposition, and learn about regime/opposition strength and standing in the broader population” (Knutsen, Mokleiv Nygard, and Wig, 2017, 98). Holding elections does garner the risk of defeat, even with vote-buying and election-rigging, but “many autocratic leaders, at least those who are not too myopic, accept the increased short-term risk of being ousted in exchange for an improved grip on power in the long run” (136). Attitudes towards voting by citizens also differ depending on regime type: “scholars have long argued that where political institutions encompass broad views and interests in policymaking processes, citizens are more likely to engage in the political process, because they signal the openness of the political system to citizens, thus altering their belief about their influence” (Hyun Kim, 2019, 597). Theoretically in democracies, citizens vote because they trust that elections will be fair and reflect the will of the people; democracies make room for diverse citizen opinions to be heard. In contrast, citizens in autocracies understand the electoral corruption, and therefore may not have faith in their vote. Scholarly accounts conclude that this lack of trust in the regime does not stop people from voting. In Cameroon, “despite the fact that 70% of respondents believed the ruling party will win elections, when asked whether their vote makes a difference in elections, 65% of Cameroonians said it did” (Wenzell Letsa, 2019, 440). Though the people polled by Wenzell Letsa expressed various opinions of the ruling party, the party won 148 out of 180 seats in the 2013 legislative election and 71.28% of votes in the 2018 presidential election (443). In a study on voting in Russia, Reuter suggests that “the duty to vote under autocracy is rooted not in norms of democratic participation but rather in reverence for the state” (Reuter, 2021). Similarly, while Chinese political participation voting (in local/village elections) is tightly controlled, “Chinese citizens are often insistently ingenious in organizing protests or engaging in public discussions in ways that work around official controls, while leveraging official rules and promises” (He and Warren, 2011, 274). References: Central Intelligence Agency. “Field Listing- Suffrage.” CIA World Factbook. Accessed July 12, 2024. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/suffrage/ He, Baogang, and Mark Warren. 2011. “Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development.” Perspectives on Politics, 9 no. 2 269-289. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41479652 Hyun Kim, Jeong. 2019. “Direct Democracy and Women’s Political Engagement.” American Journal of Political Science, 63 no. 3. 549-610. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45132499 Knutsen, Carl, Havard Mokleiv Nygard, and Tore Wig. 2017. “Autocratic Elections: Stabilizing Tool or Force for Change?” World Politics, 69 no. 1 98-143. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26347385 Nyblade, Benjamin, Elizabeth Iams Wellman, and Nathan Allen. 2022. “Transnational voting rights and policies in violent democracies: a global comparison.” Comparative Migration Studies 10 no. 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-022-00299-9 Reuter, Ora John. 2021. “Civic Duty and Voting Under Autocracy.” The Journal of Politics, 83 no. 4. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/711718 Shumacher, Shannon and Aidan Connaughton. 2020. “From voter registration to mail-in ballots, how do countries around the world run their elections?” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/30/from-voter-registration-to-mail-in-ballots-how-do-countries-around-the-world-run-their-elections/ Umpierrez de Reguero, Sebastian, Inci Oyku Yener-Roderburg, and Vivian Cartagena. 2021. “Political Regimes and External Voting Rights: A Cross-National Comparison.” Frontiers in Political Science 3, Sec. Elections and Representation. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.636734 Wenzell Letsa, Natalie. 2019. “Expressive Voting in Autocracies: A Theory of Non-Economic Participation with Evidence from Cameroon.” Perspectives on Politics, 18 no. 2 439-453. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719001002