Most countries

Is this right protected in the Constitutions of most countries today?

Right	Breakout	Contents
Freedom of Association		Constitutions written after 1900 very often protect free association. As the right to free association is upheld by numerous United Nations treaties, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it would be expected that most countries maintain legal provisions protecting it. Though, investigated by UN Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai, many countries enforce legislation that explicitly restricts civilians’ entitlements to free association (International Center for Not-for-Profit Law). For example, noted by Kiai, in Malaysia, the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 bans individuals under the age of twenty one from organizing public demonstrations. Additionally, stipulated by the same act, children under the age of fifteen cannot participate in demonstrations. Article 33 of the Constitution of Mexico, Kiai asserts, prohibits foreigners from engaging with Mexican politics. Similarly, Kiai notes that in Myanmar, Article 354 prohibits foreigners from assembling. Through these various forms of legislation, political and social association are highly restricted, as individuals are prohibited from expressing their associations through protest and civic engagement. Additionally, Kiai presents how legal restrictions on sexual orientation limit free association in several countries. For example, in Russia, a ban on gay pride parades was upheld by Moscow’s city council in 2012. Likewise, in Nigeria, the President ushered in the Same Sex Marriage Act in 2014, prohibting gay marriage and the ability to “participate in or support gay clubs, societies, organizations, processions or meeting.” Kiai notes a similar anti-homosexuality law was signed by Uganda’s president in 2014. Demonstrated by these numerous legal restrictions to homosexuality, free association is unprotected in numerous countries, as one can often be punished for associating with a specific sexual orientation. In the remainder of his report, Kiai continues to elaborate on numerous legal provisions that restrict free association. For example, Kiai notes how both Chile and Turkey utilize counter-terrorism legislation to restrict free association. Similarly, he explains how criminal laws in Vietnam and El Salvador often deter individuals from exercising their rights to free association, as their voices may be met with harsh penalties from their governments. Witnessed through Kiai’s reporting, the restrictions to free association are plentiful. This ultimately demonstrates that despite its entitlement by numerous United Nations treaties, the right to free association is highly vulnerable to violation and not widely internationally upheld.
Freedom of Expression		The right to free expression, expressed in terms of freedom of speech, is “formally granted by the laws of most nations” (World Population Review), though the degree of liberty that comes with entitlements to free expression may differ. Furthermore, a Free Expression Index generated by Pew Research Center in 2015 demonstrates one method for comparing the strength of free expression internationally (Pew Research Center). In developing the index, Pew surveyed 38 countries on eight questions pertaining to free expression. Pew proceeded to then rank the countries on a scale of zero to eight-eight meaning the country fully supported free expression. From their results, the United States and Canada demonstrated the highest levels of free expression, with scores of 5.73 and 5.08 respectively, while Senegal and Burkina Faso showed the lowest levels of free expression, with scores of 2.06 and 2.94, respectively. Thus, demonstrated by the Pew Research index, while many countries may support free expression within their constitutions, the degree to which free expression is practiced and enforced often varies. References: Pew Research Center: “Global Support for Principle of Free Expression, but Opposition to Some Forms of Speech,” November 8, 2015: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/global-support-for-principle-of-free-expression-but-opposition-to-some-forms-of-speech/ (Accessed November 9, 2022 World Population Review: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech (Accessed November 9, 2022)
Freedom of Religion		Most countries in the modern world protect freedom of religion in their constitutions; however, the extent to which the right is truly protected in practice ranges from state to state. The U.S. State Department names and publicly shames eight “Countries of Particular Concern” that systematically and consistently violate religious freedom rights within their borders: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan (Pellot 2014). The Freedom of Thought Report by Humanists International found that you can be put to death for expressing atheism in an astonishing thirteen countries. Also, in thirty-nine countries the law mandates a prison sentence for blasphemy, including six surprising western countries: Iceland (up to three months), Denmark (up to four months), New Zealand (up to a year), Poland (up to two years), Germany (up to three years) and Greece (up to three years). Although the right may be protected in many states' constitutions, freedom of religion is severely lacking in many countries around the world. REFERENCES Pellot, Brian. “The Worst Countries for Religious Freedom.” Index on Censorship, 3 Jan. 2014, www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/.
Freedom of the Press		Freedom of the press, and the extent to which it is present, varies widely around the globe. Reporters without Borders is an international non-profit and NGO that maintains a yearly Press Freedom Index that gives some clues on where on the globe freedom of the press is most and least prevalent. This index is the largest of its kind and is frequently used to gauge levels of press freedoms across different countries. The index is based on multiple indicators, including a country’s Constitutional protections, legal precedents, treatment of journalists, and media landscape. The official definition of press freedom used by RWB is “Press freedom is defined as the ability of journalists as individuals and collectives to select, produce, and disseminate news in the public interest independent of political, economic, legal, and social interference and in the absence of threats to their physical and mental safety.” (Reporters without Borders). Europe and the European Union maintain the best freedom of the press found worldwide according to RWB. Norway has topped the Press Freedom Index for the past 2 years for a few reasons. Article 100 of Norway’s constitution allows freedom of expression in Norway (Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway). This was updated in 2006 from the old language which stated, “There shall be freedom of print” to “there shall be freedom of expression” (Rolland, 2010). 200 years ago, when Norway was drafting their Constitution, freedom of the press was essentially freedom of the print, as that was the chief media technology in 1814 (Rolland, 2010). This means that when the technology of the press evolved, they didn’t have the same constitutional protections. This modernization of Norway’s constitution ensures that all forms of the press are protected by Norway’s constitution (Rolland, 2010). The other reasons Norway ranks highly is due to their strong media market with both public and private outlets, and Norway’s leaders safeguarding press freedoms. The other countries highly rated in the Press Freedom Index include Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Estonia, Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland and Germany. The non-European countries that are highly rated include Canada, New Zealand, Timor-Leste, Samoa, and Jamaica. To give some examples, Denmark’s constitution states “Any person shall be entitled to publish his thoughts in printing, in writing, and in speech, provided that he may be held answerable in a court of justice. Censorship and other preventative measures shall never again be introduced.” (The Constitutional Act of Denmark §77). Sweden’s constitution contains The Freedom of the Press Act, which states “Freedom of the press means the freedom for everyone to express their thoughts, opinions and sentiments in print, and to publish official documents and in general communicate information on any subject whatsoever” (The Freedom of the Press Act (1949:105)). The Freedom of the Press Act was originally passed in 1766, making it the world’s first law protecting freedom of the press (Weibull, 2014). It was created after decades of censorship by Swedish monarchs and has been amended in 1810 and 1812 to abolish censorship of academic and theological publications and to affirm the principles of editorial responsibility. (Weibull, 2014). The Canadian constitution contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which allows for “freedom of the press and other media of communication” (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Countries that have high levels of press freedom have many features in common that make them secure for journalists. The Press Freedom Index analyzes five contextual indicators that are used to gauge press freedom. First off, countries with high levels of press freedom have a solid legal framework protecting freedom of the press. This includes constitutions, as well as the ability of the press to access information without discrimination. The next category is political context, which is a states current level of acceptance of journalism, a states support of journalism, and the role of the press in keeping accountability in government. To use Norway as an example, Norwegian politicians are supportive of the country’s media landscape, rather than the United States, where many politicians call the media into doubt. Economic context is also considered, which is mainly the economic constraints a state may place on the press. Sociocultural contexts can impede the press’s ability to report information on issues like gender and religion. Lastly, the safety of the press is questioned. This includes safety from physical harm, psychological harm, and professional harm (such as a journalist having their equipment confiscated). This gives an idea about what freedom of the press looks like in the countries that do their best to uphold it. Journalists are protected by the law and can investigate and scrutinize the state. The politicians in charge of the country uphold press freedom and do not interfere unjustly. The state doesn’t impose unjust economic constraints on media outlets, and journalists are safe in their line of work. This brings me to the original question, “Is [freedom of the press] protected in the constitutions of most countries today?”. I must answer that yes, it is technically protected in the constitutions of most countries today. With the exception of Eritrea and Afghanistan, which both don’t have a constitution in effect, every other country ranked lowest in the Press Freedom Index had freedom of expression/press given to the citizens in their constitution. The countries ranked highest in the Press Freedom Index have freedom of expression/press given to the citizens in their constitution or supporting constitutional documents, like the U.S. Bill of Rights and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This leads me to believe that it must be up to a country’s leadership to protect the laws these countries have written. Syria and North Korea both give their citizens freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but the regimes in power there penalize those who try to use that right. This is an interesting paradox that exists in the constitutions of both democratic and autocratic nations. “Chapter V: Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens,” Socialist Constitution of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, 2019. https://heinonline-org.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzkp0009&collection=cow Justice Laws Website. “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Canada, 1982. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html. National Archives. “The Bill of Rights: A Transcription,” November 4, 2015. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript. “Part 1: Rights and Freedoms.” English Translation of the Syrian Constitution Modifications, 2012. https://heinonline-org.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzsy0011&collection=cow Reporters without Borders. “Press Freedom Index,” 2024. https://rsf.org/en/index. Reporters without Borders. “Methodology used for compiling the World Press Freedom Index 2024,” 2024 https://rsf.org/en/methodology-used-compiling-world-press-freedom-index-2024?year=2024&data_type=general Rolland, Asle. “Modernising Freedom of Speech: The Case of Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution.” Policy Studies 31, no. 3 (May 2010): 331–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442871003616008. “Section E: Human Rights,” Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, 2023. https://heinonline-org.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzno0102&collection=cow “The Constitution,” April 3, 2023. https://www.riksdagen.se/en/how-the-riksdag-works/democracy/the-constitution/. The Danish Parliament. “The Constitutional Act,” February 19, 2024. https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/en/democracy/the-constitutional-act. United States Department of State. “2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.” https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/. Weibull, Lennart. “Freedom of the Press Act of 1766.” Britannica, 2014. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Freedom-of-the-Press-Act-of-1766.
Privacy Rights		The right to privacy is a widely accepted right throughout the world. Currently, 186 constitutions around the globe include the right to privacy. Within these constitutions however, there are discrepancies in the language and what is considered to fall under the ‘right to privacy’ umbrella. In the most obvious cases, there is a considerable differentiation between the age of the constitutions being compared. For example, the United States has maintained the same Constitution since 1789 with its last alteration being the 27th Amendment in 1992. Privacy, however, was addressed in the 4th Amendment in 1791 which states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”(U.S. Constitution- Fourth Amendment). While formal alterations or additions to the US Constitution have been relatively scarce, the United States legal system, as it pertains to the Constitution, has evolved. Through judicial review, the Supreme Court has applied interpretations to the original document. We see this instance in the 1960 Supreme Court Case Griswold v. Connecticut. This landmark case ruled that the Constitution protected the right of marital privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)). This provides insight on how the US addresses rights, like the right to privacy, that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Looking at other countries suggests some of the range of approaches to the right to privacy. For an alternate example we can look to the current constitution of Albania. Albania’s active constitution was ratified in 1998 with the latest modification being made in 2016. Articles 35-37 of the constitution addresses the right to privacy in much broader scope than the United States, “No one may be obliged, except when the law requires it, to make public the data connected with his person,” (Constitute Project 2020) “The freedom and secrecy of correspondence or any other means of communication are guaranteed,” and “The inviolability of the residence is guaranteed.” (Constitute Project 2020) More is included within these articles but the three main points address the “data,” the communication, and the residence of the individual. Clearly, the language used in Albania’s constitution applies to a lot more aspects of one's privacy than the language used in the US constitution. With that said, the structure of Albania’s government differs from that of the United States, especially when it comes to the judicial system. Albania has a Supreme Court and a Constitutional Court. The latter is responsible for interpreting “the compatibility of international agreements with the mandates of the Constitution prior to their ratification; verifies compliance with the Constitution in legislative acts passed by local, regional and central government bodies; and adjudicates individual citizens’ claims of constitutional rights breaches and violations,” (“Researching the Albanian Legal System” 2019). Furthermore, “Judicial review by the Constitutional Court may be requested upon petitions submitted by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, 1/5th of Parliament’s members, the Head of High State Control as well as any lower court,” (“Researching the Albanian Legal System” 2019). A specific example of this occurred in 2008 as law no. 9887, “On Protection of Personal Data,” expanded and defined privacy rights as it pertained to personal data. This was brought forward by the Council of Ministers, which falls under the executive branch of the Albanian government. This same law was then subsequently amended in 2012 and 2014 to modify the right to privacy in an era of technology. We can see these protections in action as six different multinational companies were fined in April of 2024 for violating Albania's privacy rights (“Albania” 2024). In Albania, there are more avenues for other branches of government to directly bring forward issues of constitutionality and, as we have seen with law no. 9887, propose new legislation meant to refine or analyze contemporary applications of constitutional law. Additionally, justices, for both the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court, serve for a single term of 9 years. This is just another factor in how constitutional rights are interpreted and applied. In 2020, Algeria enacted its current constitution which shares similar constitutional provisions on the right to privacy. In articles 47 and 48 it confirms that, “Every person shall have the right to the protection of his honor and private life. Every person shall have the right to the confidentiality of his correspondence and private communications in all their forms…The protection of individuals when handling personal data shall be a fundamental right.” (Constitute Project 2020). Another longstanding constitution, that of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, was originally enacted in 1814 but has been subsequently amended up until the year 2008. Articles 10, 12, and 13 state, “Everyone shall have the right to respect for his privacy, without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament,”(Constitute Project 2020) “Entry into a home against the will of the occupant shall be permitted only in the cases laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament, by those designated for the purpose by or pursuant to Act of Parliament,”(Constitute Project 2020) and “The privacy of correspondence shall not be violated except in the cases laid down by Act of Parliament, by order of the courts. The privacy of the telephone and telegraph shall not be violated except, in the cases laid down by Act of Parliament, by or with the authorization of those designated for the purpose by Act of Parliament.” (Constitute Project 2020) Again, there is more included within the official articles, but the main points are delivered. Communication and residence are clearly stated but one's data, as proclaimed by the previous two constitutions, is not explicitly stated. We can also look towards Somalia’s constitution which was enacted in 2012 that states, “The home and other dwellings of the person shall be inviolable, and their entry, search or surveillance shall not be allowed without a reasoned order from a judge. Any such order must be read properly to the occupier of the dwelling before entry, and the inspecting authority is prohibited to violate the law,” (Constitute Project 2020). Here, the right to privacy explicitly secures one’s home but not much else. How one’s “other dwellings” are officially defined is not included in the country’s constitution. So, in looking at these examples, and various others, it is hard to definitively define the extent of one's “right to privacy” as there is no international consensus and the language used in many constitutions worldwide are not cut and dry. Furthermore, while the age of a country’s constitution may be a factor, how their political system is structured is also an important consideration when determining the scope of this right. References: Congress.gov. 2022. “U.S. Constitution - Fourth Amendment - Resources - Constitution Annotated - Congress.gov - Library of Congress.” Constitution.congress.gov. Constitution Annotated. 2022. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/. “Researching the Albanian Legal System.” n.d. GlobaLex - Foreign and International Law Research. Accessed July 30, 2024. https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Albania1.html#thejudi. “Albania.” n.d. DataGuidance. Accessed July 30, 2024. https://www.dataguidance.com/jurisdiction/albania. Read. 2020. “Read about ‘Right to Privacy’ on Constitute.” Constituteproject.org. 2020. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitutions?key=privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Voting Rights and Suffrage		The right to vote has developed into an international norm over the past several decades, one often made an element of national constitutions. The widespread suffrage we see today was achieved through the struggle of advocates for democracy around the globe. Other political forces, beyond national constitutions, have also guided the global development of voting rights, to some degree. International and regional conventions on human, civic, and political rights further encourage states to protect their citizens’ right to vote. Examples include The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Organization of American States (OAS), to name just a few. (Kirshner, 2003) Though ambitious, such conventions are rarely legally binding, thus lacking enforcement. Furthermore, they present a general framework that allows national governments to find and exploit loopholes based on their own interests, should they desire to do so. A government’s motivation plays a key role in how it implements voting rights. While we typically think of suffrage as a way of empowering citizens, it functions just as easily as a tool of legitimation to counter both domestic and international criticism. The latter function is common in “anocratic” states that blend democracy with authoritarianism, and can use voting rights as an attempt to gain clout and legitimacy in the global arena. (Global Citizen) References: Global Citizen. “What Democracy and Voting Rights Look Like Around the World.” n.d. Global Citizen. Accessed June 9, 2021. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/its-2016-here-is-the-state-of-voting-rights-around/. Kirshner, Alexander. 2003. “The International Status of the Right to Vote.” Democracy Coalition Project.