Property:Contents
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
F
Differences in state and federal law contribute to varying levels of freedom of association across the United States. While Supreme Court cases such as Bates v. Little Rock, Shelton v. Tucker, Roberts vs. United States Jaycees, Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale, and Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez upheld the right to freedom of association, the right continues to be violated across states. Furthermore, despite its support from the Supreme Court, the system of federalism often leads to the restriction of freedom of association by local courts and authorities.
Particularly in South Florida, Lance Compa investigates how nursing home workers’ rights to free association have been violated. Furthermore, Compa explains how federalism exacerbates these violations. Noting the Palm Garden nursing home case, Copa discusses how nursing home workers were threatened with pay and benefit cuts if they decided to join unions. Additionally, Compa notes Palm Garden’s personnel manual, which states, “This is a non-union health center...if you are approached to join a union, we sincerely hope you will consider the individual freedoms you could give up, and the countless risks you could be taking.” After workers were in fact fired for joining unions, Compa notes, the NLRB asserted that Palm Garden must reinstate employees, as they had violated the workers’ right to free association. Still rejecting rehiring the employees, Compa explains that Palm Garden appealed to federal court, where the case still remains pending indefinitely. Furthermore, while the Supreme Court may uphold freedom of association, this does not mean the right can be strictly enforced throughout the United States, as appealing to federal courts demonstrates a significant challenge.
Additionally, Compa notes how freedom of association has been restricted for food processing workers. Specifically, Compa discusses the abuses faced by Smithfield workers in North Carolina, a state dominated by the food processing industry. Firing union activists and actively intimidating and discriminating against organizing workers, the Smithfield Plant violated its workers' freedom of association in numerous ways. Compa stresses that these abuses were ultimately the result of federalism, a system that contributes to the restriction of freedom of association. Compa states, “Instead of fulfilling the affirmative responsibility of government authorities to protect workers’ rights, state power was used to interfere with workers’ freedom of association in violation of international human rights norms.” Noting how local police were permitted to intimidate workers at the Smithfield Plant, Copa affirms how local authorities restrict freedom of association, countering federal law. This demonstrates how the division of state and federal power can weaken the strength of freedom of association, as local governments can discreetly work to limit the right.
The right to associate - specifically, the right for associations to exclude people from membership for whatever reason they want - may conflict with the right not to face discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as race and gender. The US Supreme Court has decided cases where an association’s decision to exclude members conflicts with non-discrimination law. In Roberts v. US Jaycees ( [[Probable year:: 1984]]) , the court rejected the free-association claim of a male-only business organization because its association was neither “expressive” nor “intimate.” In Boy Scouts v. Dale ([[Probable year:: 2000]]) , however, the court held that the Boy Scouts of America could exclude gay members because not being able to do so would violate the organization’s right to expressive association.
Free expression is critical to the practice of free association. The US Supreme Court explicitly protects “expressive” association because many associations exist to express a particular viewpoint. If a government restricts the advocacy of certain ideas, it will almost certainly restrict the activity of groups whose purpose is to express those ideas. Additionally, freedom of association depends on the free exercise of religion. As Locke wrote in A Letter Concerning Toleration, a church is a “a society of members voluntarily uniting” (Locke [[Probable year:: 1689]], 9). Religious observance often requires worship in large groups, so restricting these religious practices entails the abridgement of free association.
Roberts v. US Jaycees: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/609 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale: https://www.oyez.org/cases/[[Probable year:: 1999]]/ 99-699
A Letter Concerning Toleration: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf +
Numerous scholars offer interpretations of the hierarchy of rights, placing freedom of association at differing levels of importance. Noted by Tom Farer in “The Hierarchy of Human Rights”, human rights are non-negotiable, and thus are prioritized within the hierarchy. As to why certain rights remain at the top of the hierarchy, Farer answers “because all other rights are dependent on them.” Furthermore, Farer claims that a consensus among United States human rights organizations is that the rights to life, physical security, and due process are essential human rights. Excluding freedom of association from his selection of non-negotiable human rights, Farer undermines its importance within the hierarchy of rights. Thus, Farer emphasizes that the rights to life, physical security, and due process hold precedence over the right to free association.
Fernando Surez Muller argues that there is a select group of fundamental rights that are essential to the exercise of all other rights. With this, Muller emphasizes that certain rights must be prioritized in order for others to be functionally implemented. When analyzing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Muller interprets freedom of association to be a right of particular importance. Muller argues that the rights to communication and expression are impossible to exercise without the right of free association, claiming, “Related to this transcendental right to communication (cell 6) are also all mobility rights (mentioned in articles 13 to 15) because communication is not only a matter of expression but it is also a matter of transporting and receiving the message and this requires freedom of association.” Thus, from Muller’s perspective, freedom of association maintains a high position within the hierarchy of human rights.
Explained by Kimberley Brownlee and David Jenkins of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the right to associate often only pertains to certain associations. Because of this, different rights to different associations have varying ranks within the hierarchy of rights. Brownlee and Jenkins claim “However, since not all associations operate according to either implicit or explicit declarations of consent, exactly what counts as consent is a difficult thing to assess: How do we know when association is free? This problem is exacerbated by the hierarchical form that many associations take.” For this reason, Brownlee and Jenkins note that explicit associations, group identifications that are easy to identify and thus protect, are often prioritized within the hierarchy of rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights places freedom of association at a high position of value. The document asserts: “ Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” While the document does not enumerate human rights in hierarchical order, the platform of the United Nations and the inclusion of the freedom of association within the document suffices the right’s universally accepted importance and position of high status.
Additionally, the inclusion of freedom of association within the European Convention on Human Rights emphasizes the value of the right. Asserting the importance of freedom of association, Article 11 claims, “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” Stressing freedom of association to be an essential human right, the Convention echoes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, upholding the value of freedom of association.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms similarly elevates freedom of association to a high status. Within its fundamental freedoms section, the charter emphasizes “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a. Freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association.” Explicitly stating that the freedom of association is one of the four fundamental freedoms, the Charter clearly asserts that freedom of association is essential to the liberty of individuals. Given the select group of fundamental freedoms, the placement of freedom of association within the list demonstrates its uplifted position within the greater hierarchy of human rights.
In the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the International Labour Organization additionally upholds the pertinence of freedom of association. Within the declaration, the ILO asserts four categories to be promoted by member states, including freedom of association. Similar to The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by only including a select group of rights, the Declaration affirms the high status of these freedoms. Thus, the inclusion of freedom of association within the four categories asserts its importance
An array of historical events have contributed to the identification of the right to freedom of association as a fundamental right ranging from the red scare during the Cold war, guilt by association laws, and the dismantling of legislation permitting the existence of racial segregation. A specific event that contributed to the identification of freedom of association as a fundamental right was the emergence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; this enactment historically marked the end of segregation and legally prohibited the discrimination of people on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or religious affiliation. After this act was enacted into law, people living in the American South were free to associate with anybody regardless of their racial or ethnic identity. Although the Civil Rights act was an example of legal identification of the freedom of association as a fundamental right, this was not the first time in history that association was debated over whether or not it constituted a right. The introduction of the acknowledgment of the right to freedom of association begins with the existence of guilt by association laws, as well as labor union provisions. These legal prohibitions restricting an individual from freely exercising their right to association with people of their choosing point to the significance of the legal precedent permitting the right to freedom of association to remain protected under law.
An example of an event that led to the classification of the right to freedom of association as impenetrable liberty under the law is drawn from a ruling that was decided in the early 20th century but drew upon a case from the 1890s to point out the precedent that the right to freedom of association had under Missouri state law. “The distinction [of the right to freely associate] was of some significance in the criminal syndicalism cases of the early twentieth century precisely because the Missouri Supreme Court had three decades earlier (in 1896) invalidated a St. Louis vagrancy ordinance that sought to forbid residents from “knowingly...associat-[ing] with persons having the reputation of being thieves, burglars, pickpockets, pigeon droppers, bawds, prostitutes or lewd women or gamblers, or any other person, for the purpose or with the intent to agree, conspire, combine or confederate, first, to commit any offense, or, second, to cheat or defraud any person of any money or property.” It was here, in a context far removed from public meetings and speeches, that lawyers and judges first considered a right to freedom of association.” (Whittington, 2008, pg. 81). This specific analysis of the documented Missouri Supreme Court invalidation placed upon the St. Louis' vagrancy ordinance in 1896 underlined an imperative element to the right to freely associate; a state cannot legally abridge someone from willingly associating with people that are assumed to have a negative reputation or past history within the legal system. This legal precedent solidified the right to freedom of association as a federally protected right; prohibition of the freedom to exercise an individual’s right to freedom of association would result in federal action against a state that chose to interfere.
Although the freedom to associate with people freely can include restrictions placed on an individual, there are indeed group prohibitions under the right to freedom of association. “Notions of political discrimination in the public workplace derived initially from the Cold War era in a series of cases dealing with loyalty oaths. Loyalty oath cases derived from the fear of the spread of Communism after the Russian Revolution in 1917. During this time and thereafter, many laws were passed in the United States which sought to limit the ability of Communists or Communist sympathizers from gaining government employment and undermining the government. In particular, numerous federal and state laws were passed prohibiting the holding of public employment by those who refused to swear that they had not had any connection with the Communist Party.” (Secunda, 2008, pg. 351). When the US government chose to reinforce fierce associative laws prohibiting the free exercise of choice to associate in groups with people that held different political ideological beliefs, the federal right to freedom of association was subjunctively infringed upon. During a volatile time for the US, while fighting against communist encroachment, the right to freedom of association was more or less viewed as something that could be used as a tool or weapon. By prohibiting the association of people in the US and Communists or supporters of the communist party, the US government was sending a clear message to those who aligned themselves with communism, that they would not be welcome to share their beliefs with other people through threats of blackballing or guilt by association.
An example of ideological group association that was upheld as a right to the freedom of association occurred in 1984, in of Roberts v. US Jaycees case. “Moreover, group expression is deemed essential in a democratic society to preserve political and cultural diversity and to protect unpopular views from majoritarian control.” (pg. Jameson, 1985, 1065). This idea of group expression extends beyond intimate associations, in the Supreme Court case Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the national organization of US Jaycees limited their full membership status to men aged eighteen to thirty-five; and subsequently prohibited women and older men in the organization from being eligible for full-time memberships. Justice William J. Brennan ultimately ruled that the inclusion of women and older men in ‘associate’ memberships constituted an acknowledgment of membership status. Thus the Jaycees had no legal right to exclude them from associating with the organization as full-time members. This ultimately affirmed the state of New Jersey’s court decision to institute an antidiscrimination policy within the bylaws of the US Jaycees membership requirements. “In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state’s interest in eliminating gender-based discrimination justified the impact that requiring the Jaycees to admit women may have on the male members’ freedom of association.” (Jameson, 1985, pg. 1058). Although the U.S. Jaycees were a private organization, the prior inclusion of women and older men as part-time members led the court to rule in favor of the NJ state decision, the Jaycees could not legally restrict women from associating themselves as full-time members within the Jaycees organization.
A situation that brought to light forceful infringements on the right to freedom of association occurred in the 2000s, following the exposure that the Boy Scouts of America excluded a scoutmaster from being a part of the organization after learning of his sexual orientation. “Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 2000, US Supreme Court struck down this application of New Jersey’s anti-discrimination law on the ground that forcing the Scouts to allow homosexuals to be members and scoutmasters would alter the Scouts’ “message” and thus violate their First Amendment right of freedom of expressive association.” (Alexander, 2008, pg. 6). Due to the nature of the scout’s organizational message, specifically mentioning their goal to “instill clean and straight moral values”, the Supreme court ruled in favor of the organization’s right to freely associate with those that aligned with their moral values. This particular ruling signifies the dichotomy within the right to freedom of association; a private organization can restrict members from joining if their personal associations go against their organization’s message and central core tenets. The difference between this case and that of the US Jaycees case was rooted in how the organization viewed members. Boy Scouts of America subjectively denied homosexuals entry from their scout memberships and the entire program, whereas Jaycees had already included women and older men in their associative memberships within the organization. Thus, the supreme court aligned its rulings with factual precedent; if a state interfered with an organization's right to associate with those who they chose, then the federal government would step in and uphold the right to freedom of association as long as the provisions of membership were not violated. Therefore, it did not violate the Jaycees' right to freedom of association by allowing women and older men to move from part-time members to full-time. However, with BSOA, their organization’s values and the core central message would have been infringed upon if the court demanded that the Boy Scouts accept homosexuals as scout leaders and members.
A circumstance in history where the right to the freedom of political association was upheld by the Supreme Court followed the exercise of discriminatory voting blocs by the Democratic party in Texas. “In Terry [Terry v. Adams, 1953], the Court prohibited a county in Texas from giving effect to what amounted to (successful) racial bloc voting. Democrats far outnumbered Republicans in the county, and thus the Democratic primary winners always prevailed in the general elections for county offices. Further, white Democrats appreciably outnumbered black Democrats within the county’s Democratic Party. Although the Court in one of the earlier White Primary cases had forced the Democratic Party in Texas not to discriminate against black voters in its primaries —which, after all, were run by the state itself out of tax revenues—and the Democratic primary in this county was indeed open to black voters, the white Democrats organized themselves into the Jaybird Club and held their own, privately supported “pre-primary primary.” (Alexander, 2008, pg. 5). The right to freedom of association does not necessarily extend to the right to freely exclude an entire group of people from a public political organization through the use of racial bloc voting. The Democratic party was prohibiting the right to freedom of association by not allowing Black voters to have a choice of whether or not they wanted to associate themselves with the candidate that the Jaybirds had elected.
Historical events that contributed to a widespread belief in the importance of the right to freedom of association can be shown from the decision in the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia; decided in 1967, this case determined that Southern states were legally required to allow interracial marriages to be permitted under law. The Loving decision brought forth a significant argument in favor of the right to freedom of association, a state could not legally abridge the right to freely associate with people in intimate capacities.
The right to freedom of group expression underlines the exceptions within precedent regarding the exercise of group political identities or participation with associative organizations. “Specifically, these cases dealt with the so-called "spoils system," or political patronage, which rewards public employment based on loyalty to a given political party. In Elrod v. Burns, for example, the plurality decision written by Justice [William] Brennan found that Illinois public employees, who were non-confidential, non-policymaking employees, could not be fired merely because of their partisan political affiliation." (Secunda, 2008, 352). The Burns decision highlights an interesting exception to the right to freedom of association, although the spoils system was legal under the Constitution, the use of political patronage against state employees for their political identity association was a direct infringement upon an individual’s exercise of the right to freely associate. In this particular IL public school, employees found themselves penalized for choosing to associate themselves with a particular political party or organization based on the principle that the state of IL deemed it appropriate to fire employees based on their political associations.
Another example of protecting the right to freely associate intimately with another person is underlined by the decision in Lawrence v. Texas. In 2003, the Supreme court struck down a TX sodomy law as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In an attempt to dictate the specific terms under the right to freedom of association, TX had formed a sodomy law prohibiting the free exercise of intimate forms of association. “‘Bowers had held that there was no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy.' In overturning Bowers, Lawrence's central holding was that the Texas sodomy statute at issue furthered no legitimate state interest which could justify the intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. The most important constitutional innovation wrought by this holding is the apparent attachment of some form of heightened scrutiny to the right to be free from decisional interference in matters of an intimate nature. Indeed, implicit in this holding is the need to balance individual privacy interests against legitimate and substantial state interests.” (Secunda, 2008, pg. 357). The significance of an intrusion on private associations in regards to exercising the freedom of association as a fundamental right divides the debate in half, a state government cannot abridge the freedom of association when deciding who someone can intimately be associated with under federal law. A legitimate state interest would need to be produced in order for an intimate association to be prohibited under TX state legislation.
References:
Alexander, Larry. "What is Freedom of Association, and what is its denial?." Social Philosophy and Policy 25, no. 2 (2008): 1-21.
Epstein, Richard A. "Public Accommodations Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Why Freedom of Association Counts as a Human Right." Stanford Law Review 66 (2014): 1241.
Inazu, John D. "The Unsettling “Well-Settled” Law of Freedom of Association”, 2010.
Jameson, Ann H. "Roberts v. United States Jaycees: Discriminatory Membership Policy of a National Organization Held Not Protected by First Amendment Freedom of Association." Catholic University Law Review 34, no. 4 (1985): 1055-1086.
Secunda, Paul M. "Reflections on the Technicolor Right to Association in American Labor and Employment Law." Kentucky Law Journal 96, no. 3 (2008).
Whittington, Keith E. 2008. “INDUSTRIAL SABOTEURS, REPUTED THIEVES, COMMUNISTS, AND THE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.” Social Philosophy and Policy 25 (2). Cambridge University Press: 76–91.
Assertions of freedom of association as a right first emerged during the Enlightenment period of the 17th and 18th centuries from philosophers such as Locke and Montesquieu. Locke forms his argument on a larger scale in terms of political society as a whole: “Nothing can make any man so but his actually entering into [society] by positive engagement and express promise and compact. This is that which, I think, concerning the beginning of political societies, and that consent which makes any one a member of any commonwealth” (Locke 1690, 158). Montesquieu however specifies his argument in terms of economic associations: “… all associations of merchants, in order to carry on a particular commerce, are seldom proper in absolute governments” (Montesquieu 1748, 352). Conversely, if associations are not “proper” in absolute governments, one can conclude that Montesquieu advocated for freedom of association as a necessary component of a democratic society to protect individual interests. While Enlightenment philosophers were among the first to raise the issue of association rights, it took several hundred years for it to be officially and legally codified. Major historical movements that have promoted freedom of association are of twofold importance: firstly, association rights are often exercised to highlight societal or political injustices, but the right itself also lends legitimacy to the people who want to see progress in their societies and governments.
In terms of formal acceptances of freedom of association, the first country-specific code emerged in France in 1789 and the United States in 1791. In the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, Article 11 establishes that “the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” (“Declaration of the Rights of Man”). Shortly after the publication of this document, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified, ensuring 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” (U.S. Constitution. Amendment I). While freedom of association is not explicitly identified here, the freedoms that are listed are specific elements of what constitutes freedom of association as a whole.
CODIFIED LAWS THAT PROTECT FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
The promotion of freedom of association did not emerge on an international scale until after World War II. First in 1948 with the adoption of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 20 provides that “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association." This was the first international agreement to refer to human rights and liberties that everyone should enjoy, regardless of nationality or citizenship. And while this is not a universally legally binding document, it serves as a baseline for legal frameworks around the world and establishes freedom of association as a fundamental right of democratic societies. Building upon the UDHR later in 1966, the UN established the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to ensure the protection of fundamental civil and political rights in each of its participant countries. Article 22 states that:
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others…
While the UDHR is an internationally focused agreement, it is not legally binding for the partner countries and therefore has no real jurisdiction or right to action. Conversely, the ICCPR as a legal document guarantees the rights it establishes in each country that ratifies the Covenant.
AMERICAN LABOR AND TRADE UNION MOVEMENT
The American labor and trade union movement of the early 20th century was a major historical force that contributed to a more widespread belief in freedom of association. In light of the industrialization of the 18th and 19th centuries, the movement fought for the rights of workers to form trade unions and bargain collectively. As we saw in the UDHR, one can think of union membership as an exercise of freedom of association. An example from the decade before the promulgation of the UDHR that might make this clear is the passage of the National Labor Relations Act into law in 1935. Its main objective was to guarantee freedom of association for employees via the formation of union organizations. Section 7. C provides that “employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection…” (United States Code: National Labor Relations). Because of the work of trade organizations like the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, freedom of association was now a legally protected right for American employees in their places of work.
WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE
The women’s suffrage movement of the 19th and 20th centuries was greatly dependent on freedom of association as a means of action, and it also helped to promote a more widespread belief in this freedom as a fundamental right. Organizations like the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) in the US and the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) in the UK were instrumental in organizing efforts of like-minded people who wanted to see gender equality for political rights. One of the most notable events of the movement was the Seneca Falls Convention that convened in 1848. At this convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton produced the Declaration of Sentiments, which explained both what activists wanted to see produced from their actions (i.e., gender equality socially, politically, religiously, and economically), but also how they planned to use freedom of association to publicize their message and complaints. The Declaration proclaims that “we shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and National legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press on our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions embracing every part of the country” (Stanton, 1848). By utilizing freedom of association to organize the efforts of their activists, they could achieve greater clarity of message and work more efficiently to bring their goals to fruition.
AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
Similar to the women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights Movement in America was highly dependent on the right to join organizations of one’s choosing and therefore was crucial to affirming the importance of freedom of association. But unlike the suffrage movement, there was an added barrier to the free utilization of this right— institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination. Organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) emerged as a way for like-minded individuals to coordinate efforts and provide support for other activists, but they were often met with resistance on grounds of racial discrimination. In the landmark case NAACP v. Alabama, John Patterson sued the state in an attempt to ban the organization from operating in Alabama based on the argument that “the NAACP was a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in Alabama” (Rubinowitz 2017, 1237). Patterson then “obtained an order compelling the NAACP to provide its membership list as part of the state’s assessment of the organization.” But “the organization refused to comply because of the harm that would cause both the individual members and the NAACP itself" (Rubinowitz 2017, 1237). The case reached the Supreme Court in 1958, and a unanimous Court decided in favor of the petitioners, explaining that “in the circumstances of this case, compelled disclosure of petitioner's membership lists is likely to constitute an effective restraint on its members' freedom of association…” (NAACP v. Alabama 357, 1958).
ANTI-APARTHEID MOVEMENT
The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa spanned several decades of the 20th century and was aimed at dismantling the systemic racism that the government of South Africa was built on. It utilized and promoted freedom of association as a means to organize resistance efforts and promote fundamental equality which contributed to a widespread belief in this right. The African National Congress (ANC) was the primary group leading the liberation movement for many years before being forced to go underground in the 1960s. Despite this, and after decades of repression, censorship, and violence at the hands of the apartheid government, the resistance efforts reached new heights in the 1980s. As more community organizations began to appear, it became clear that there was a need for greater structure to achieve their goals of liberation. This led to the creation of organizations like the United Democratic Front (UDF) and Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). The importance of these organizations cannot be overstated-- it was the persistent efforts of anti-apartheid associations that won out in the end and put the ANC in power from 1994 onwards (ANC History: The Struggle for People’s Power, 2023).
SOLIDARITY
The Solidarity movement was a trade union movement in Poland in the late 20th century that leveraged freedom of association to protest the communist regime. Communist rule in Poland had long been unpopular, and Solidarity was not the first movement to arise in opposition to them, but it was the first to successfully utilize the right of association to produce change which proved its importance as a fundamental right (Bartkowski 2009, 2). Following years of economic decline, Poland saw massive labor strikes in the summer of 1980. The trade union Solidarity was born out of the Gdansk Shipyard under the leadership of Lech Walesa and was legalized by the Polish government shortly thereafter as they determined that “it is considered expedient to establish new self-governing trade unions that will genuinely represent the working class” (Gdansk Agreement 1980, 11). They became the first legal trade union in the Eastern Bloc, and they eventually grew into a popular political movement. But as its popularity and size continued to develop, the communist regime imposed martial law and forced Solidarity underground. However, Solidarity survived this repression and later played a key role in the appointment of the country’s first non-communist prime minister nearly a decade later (Bartkowski, 2009).
References:
“ANC History.” African National Congress. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://www.anc1912.org.za/history/.
Baron de Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. The Spirit of the Laws. Translated by Thomas Nugent. Batoche Books, 2001.
Bartkowski, Maciej. “Poland’s Solidarity Movement (1980-1989).” International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, December 2009. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/polands-solidarity-movement-1980-1989/.
“Declaration of the Rights of Man.” Avalon Project. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp.
Khronika Press. “The Gdansk Agreement: Protocol of Agreement between the Government Commission and the Interfactory Strike Committee Concluded on August 31, 1980 at Gdansk Shipyards.” World Affairs 145, no. 1 (1982): 11–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20671927.
Locke, John. “Of the Beginning of Political Societies.” Essay. In Two Treatises of Government 10, 10:146–58. London: Thomas Tegg et. al, 1823.
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (U.S. Supreme Court June 30, 1958).
Rubinowitz, Leonard S. 2017. “The Courage of Civil Rights Lawyers: Fred Gray and His Colleagues.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 67 (4): 1227–75. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123785450&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “The Declaration of Sentiments.” The Seneca Falls Declaration 1848 . Accessed June 16, 2023. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1826-1850/the-seneca-falls-declaration-1848.php.
United Nations General Assembly. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). New York: United Nations General Assembly, 16 December 1966.
United Nations General Assembly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). New York: United Nations General Assembly, 1948.
U.S. Constitution. Amendment I
United States Code: National Labor Relations, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-166 Suppl. 2 . 1935.
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
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 [[Probable year:: 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 [[Probable year:: 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 [[Probable year:: 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 expression and freedom of religion are two of the most critical liberties for upholding freedom of association. As noted by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), “freedom of expression is frequently a necessary component of the rights to freedom of assembly and association when people join together for an expressive purpose” (ICJ n.d.), indicating that the liberties are intertwined. The United States Supreme Court itself has also stated that it “has recognized a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment-speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion” (Roberts v. United States Jaycees 1984, 618). In other words, true freedom of association is not possible without the freedom to speak or to practice a religion, both of which often involve congregation and organization among citizens.
Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are often discussed together in court cases, indicating that the two rights are enmeshed. For example, in 2009 the country of Honduras experienced a coup d’etat when then-President Zelaya was forced out of office by members of his own cabinet and other government organs. Many protested this act, including four judges who expressed their support for rule of law by attending demonstrations and conversing with others. These individuals were also a part of the Association of Judges for Democracy (AJD), and used the organization’s platform to speak out against the coup. Once it was found that the judges had and expressed political opinions in these ways, they were stripped of their positions, prevented from holding AJD membership, and convicted of violating the judicial code of ethics (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 14-48). The plaintiffs, then, appealed the judgements to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACHR), citing infringements on both freedom of expression and freedom of association. The Court eventually confirmed that the rights of the judges had been violated, explaining that their political participation was acceptable “in a context in which democracy is being impaired” (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 57), while in other cases impartiality of officials is necessary. On the subject of the liberties that were violated and their importance, the Court stated that “it has recognized the relationship that exists between political rights, freedom of expression, the right of assembly and freedom of association, and that these rights, taken as a whole, make the democratic process possible. In situations where there is a breakdown of institutional order following a coup d’état, the relationship between these rights is even clearer, especially when they are all exercised at the same time in order to protest against actions by the public authorities that are contrary to the constitutional order” (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 52). In addition, it claimed that “the ability to protest publicly and peacefully is one of the most accessible ways to exercise the right to freedom of expression, and can contribute to the protection of other rights” (Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras 2015, 55). Through this case, the IACHR affirmed that freedom of expression is deeply intertwined with freedom of association.
The critical connection between freedom of expression and freedom of association is further made clear in the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) case of Williams v. Zimbabwe. Between 2003 and 2013, individuals representing the organization Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) participated in protests where they used verbal expressions, held placards, and more. As a result, members were arrested multiple times by the Zimbabwean police and charged with attempts to disturb the peace and similar crimes under the state’s criminal code. Even after the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe stepped in and defended the rights of the victims, police continued to perform arbitrary arrests and blocked members of WOZA from peacefully protesting. As a result, members of the organization filed a complaint to the ACHPR stating that the Zimbabwean government had denied them multiple rights, including freedom of association and freedom of expression, as defined by the African Charter (Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 1-3). When deciding this case, the Court states that they would analyze the alleged violations of both rights at the same time, because “the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association are intertwined to the extent that they are fundamental human rights that form the foundations of democratic societies”(Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 18). The Commission also stated that, in the past, they had “found a violation of freedom of expression when the State violated the rights to freedom of association and freedom of assembly” (Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 18). Eventually, the body was led to the conclusion that the restrictions placed on freedom of expression, and by default freedom of association, were not justified. As noted in the case report, “associations must be given the freedom to pursue a wide range of activities, including exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly” (Williams v. Zimbabwe 2021, 18), summarizing how both rights are critical to each other in the context of the case and in general.
Judiciaries have also often examined freedom of religion and freedom of association together, as can be seen in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova. In 1992, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was created. It applied to the Moldovan government for recognition as a religious denomination, as was required by Moldovan law. However, the application went unanswered by the government, and so for the next seven years the institution alternated between pursuing legal proceedings against the government and reapplying for recognition. In every case, the government ignored or refused the Church’s requests, stating that it was “not a denomination distinct from the Orthodox Church but a schismatic group within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova and that any interference by the State to resolve the conflict would be contrary to the Moldovan Constitution” (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova 2001, 10). On top of this, members of the Church of Bessarabia were continually harassed, intimidated, assaulted, and prevented from worshiping or conducting services by authorities. As a result, the institution and individual members applied to the ECHR to hear their case on the grounds that it was breaching the freedom of religion as defined by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In their assessment, the court sided with the applicants, noting that “refusing to recognise the applicant Church…amounted to forbidding it to operate, both as a liturgical body and as an association” (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova 2001, 24), indicating that religious communities are akin to associations, which are also protected under the Convention. As a result, the Court ruled that the Moldovan government had violated the right to freedom of expression, and added that the regime’s “refusal to recognise, coupled with the authorities’ stubborn persistence in holding to the view that the applicants could practice their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, infringed their freedom of association, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention” (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova 2001, 35). The ruling, then, exemplifies how associations can be religious in nature, and religions can act as associations, meaning that the protection of religion is critical to upholding freedom of association, and vice versa.
References
International Commission of Jurists. “Chapter four: Freedom of Assembly, Association, and Expression.” Accessed July 5, 2023. https://www.icj.org/sogi-casebook-introduction/chapter-four-freedom-of-assembly-association-and-expression/
Lopez Lone et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 30 ¶ 14-18, 52, 55, 57 (Oct. 6, 2015).
https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_302_ing.pdf
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, Application no. 45701/99, ECtHR of 2001. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-59985%22]}
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep468/usrep468609/usrep468609.pdf
Williams v. Zimbabwe, African Comm. Hum. & Peoples’ Rights, Comm. No. 446/13 (February 25, 2021) https://rfkhr.imgix.net/asset/WOZA-Case-_-ACHPR-Full-Decision-compressed-2.pdf
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 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.
The Freedom of Association only became formally recognized in the US in 1958 with the landmark NAACP v Alabama SCOTUS decision (“NAACP v. ALABAMA, 377 U.S. 288” 1964). Just after the Brown v Board of Education ruling the NAACP became incredibly active in Alabama. When the state tried to demand a list of the organization's members, the NAACP refused. Freedom of Association can be found in the majority opinion where Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote “It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.” (“NAACP v. ALABAMA, 377 U.S. 288” 1964). Since the NAACP was allowed to organize their political group as an association and were afforded the privacy and rights they argued in the case.
Prior to this, this right can be found in several U.S. cases leading up to the 1958 opinion. The Supreme Court did not always recognize Freedom of Association however. In 1886, a case centered on the forming of state militias, the Court declared that the government had the ability to regulate and prohibit associations “have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies.” (Cornell Legal Information Institute). The right to protest is clearly laid out here, while the Freedom of Association is denied. Later on, in a 1945 case, the Court applied the freedom of assembly stating, “[i]t was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. All these, though not identical, are inseparable.” This allowed unions to discuss benefits and consequences of organizing (“Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945)”). Throughout the 1950s, the Court started to refer to the freedom of association as a separate but related freedom, close to speech and assembly, found in the First Amendment. By 1958, the Court deemed it "beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of" civil liberties like the freedom of speech. (Cornell Legal Information Institute).
Internationally, the earliest autonomous associations were founded by religion. The Roman Catholic Church was the most important institution in medieval Western Europe. It kept its own organization and self-government, even in the several states where it served as the recognized religion (“Freedom of Association: History”). They encouraged trade associations, guilds for artisans, and other associations, frequently with the consent of the nation's ruler, who was typically a monarch (“Freedom of Association: History”). Outside of the US, one of the first instances of the debate regarding Freedom of Association in terms of organized labor was in Great Britain. At the end of the 18th century, the Comination Acts suppressed attempts to organize unions (“Freedom of Association: History” n.d.). This caused radical reformers to protest, driving workers to violence. Eventually, the government backed the repeal of the Acts in 1824. This repeal served as Britain’s first major increase in the ability to organize and unionize. Despite some infringements on labor rights in the 1980s and 1990s, the Trade Union Congress is still a strong force in the United Kingdom’s politics and economy (“Freedom of Association: History”). This was an early implication through labor rights that Freedom of Association existed.
In order to address bad working conditions and social unrest, the ILO (International Labor Organization) devised a tripartite organization that included representatives from industry, labor, and government (“Freedom of Association: History”). The International Labor Organization (ILO) approved Convention No. 87 on freedom of association in 1948, and Convention No. 98 on the right to collectively bargain in 1949. As of 2013, 152 countries had ratified Convention No. 87, and 163 had ratified Convention No. 98, demonstrating how highly accepted these treaties are around the world (“Freedom of Association: History”). There are eight fundamental ILO conventions, some of which forbid child labor, forced labor, and employment discrimination. Only 14 of the 189 international standards treaties have been ratified by the US Senate, and only two of the eight core agreements (on forced labor in 1991 and child labor in 1999) have been ratified (“Freedom of Association: History”).
On the other hand, nations in the former Soviet Union approved ILO treaties without ever putting them into use. Communist nations argued that since the Communist Party and its affiliated labor organizations represented workers' interests, there was no need for free trade unions, which are highly specific to certain trades (“Overview of Freedom of Association”). Thus, Soviet trade unions were the antithesis of free association and an "anti-trade union" paradigm. The official unions didn't shield workers from exploitation; instead, they made them labor longer and harder to satisfy government demands (Constitution Annotated). In democratic nations, private companies occasionally adopted a similar strategy known as "company unionism," but the Soviet Union's methods were systematic in nature and a crucial component of the totalitarian regime. The Soviet Union imposed its model on its Eastern European satellite governments and exported it to other communist nations (Constitution Annotated). The largest country still using a Communist Party-controlled official union structure is the People's Republic of China (Constitution Annotated).
One of the ILO's greatest historical contributions was the inspiration and assistance it provided to Poland's Solidarity movement, which saw millions of workers rise up starting in 1980 and demand the implementation of Conventions 87 and 98 as well as the establishment of the right to form free unions (International Labor Organization 1982). As a result of the movement's success—10 million workers joined within a month of Solidarity's founding—a free trade union was officially recognized for the first time in a Communist nation. The Polish Solidarity Revolution had a tremendous impact on the entire Soviet bloc (International Labor Organization 1982). Solidarity's success was a rejection of the previous regimes. After seven years of nonviolent protest, Polish workers mounted a nationwide strike that compelled the government to re-legalize Solidarity and concede to partially free elections in June 1989, which ultimately led to the overthrow of the government (International Labor Organization 1982). Soon after, the Soviet Union as a whole disintegrated, paving the way for the rise of several new republics. Small clandestine publications that explained to employees their rights under ILO treaties served as the foundation for the entire operation (International Labor Organization 1982).
References:
Constitution Annotated. “Overview of Freedom of Association.” Library of Congress. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-8-1/ALDE_00013139/.
Cornell Legal Information Institute.“Overview of Freedom of Association.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed September 11, 2023a. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/overview-of-freedom-of-association.
“PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed September 11, 2023b. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/252.
“Freedom of Association: History.” Democracy Web. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://democracyweb.org/freedom-of-association-history.
International Labor Organization. 1982. “Interim Report - Report No 217, June 1982.” June 1982. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:50002:0::NO:50002:P50002_COMPLAINT_TEXT_ID:2900704.
“NAACP v. ALABAMA, 377 U.S. 288 (1964).” FindLaw. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/377/288.html.
“Overview of Freedom of Association.” Library of Congress. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-8-1/ALDE_00013139/.
“Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945).” Justia Law. Accessed September 11, 2023. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/323/516/.
Article 32 of the 1964 Constitution articulated protections of Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Association. With reference to freedom of assembly, it stated: "Afghan citizens have the right to assemble unarmed, without prior permission of the State, for the achievement of legitimate and peaceful purposes, in accordance with the provisions of the law." With reference to freedom of association, it stated: "Afghan citizens have the right to establish, in accordance with the provisions of the law, associations for the realisation of material or spiritual purposes."
Freedom of association is mentioned in the Afghanistan constitution of 2004 under Chapter II article 35. However, according to a US State Department 2022 report, the Taliban has restricted freedom of association and assembly and does not respect the constitution.
References:
1964 Afghanistan Constitution: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=afghanenglish
2004 Afghanistan Constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Afghanistan_2004?%20lang=en
US State Department Afghanistan 2022 Human Rights Report: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/415610_AFGHANISTAN-2022-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf +
Article 199 of the 1928 Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Albania guaranteed freedom of association "in conformity with the law." Article 53 of the 1976 Albanian Constitution states that “citizens enjoy the freedom of speech, the press, organization, association, assembly and public manifestation. The state guarantees the realization of these freedoms, it creates the conditions for them, and makes available the necessary material means” (“The Albanian Constitution of 1976").
Freedom of Association is also asserted in the Albanian Constitution of 1998, in Chapter III, Article 46.
References:
1928 Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom of Albania: https://www.hoelseth.com/royalty/albania/albconst19281201.html
1976 Albania Constitution: https://data.globalcit.eu/NationalDB/docs/ALB%20The%20Constitution%20of%20the%20Peoples%20Socialist%20Republic%20of%20Albania%201976.pdf
1998 Albania Constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Albania_2012 +
Article 19 of the 1963 Algerian Constitution states that “the Republic guarantees freedom of the press and of other means of information, freedom of association, freedom of speech and public intervention, and freedom of assembly” (Middle East Journal, [[Probable year:: 1963]]) .
References:
“The Algerian Constitution.” The Middle East journal 17, no. 4 (1963): 446–450. +
Freedom of association is guaranteed in the Constitution of the Principality of Andorra of 1993 in Chapter III, Article 17.
References:
1993 Andorra Constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Andorra_1993#s101 +
Article 22 of the 1975 Angolan Constitution states: "Within the framework of the realization of the basic objectives of the People's Republic of Angola, the law will ensure freedom of expression, assembly, and association."
Freedom of assembly in Angola is asserted in the 1992 Angolan constitution, part II, article 32: "Freedom of expression, assembly, demonstration and all other forms of expression shall be guaranteed."
The 2010 constitution of Angola guarantees freedom of association in Chapter II, section I, article 48
References:
1975 Angola Constitution: “The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Angola.” World Constitutions Illustrated, Heinonline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/rsl2&i=197
1992 Angola Constitution: https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/Angola%20Constitution.pdf
2010 Angola Constitution: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Angola_2010 +
Freedom of association is asserted in Chapter II, article 13(1) of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution of 1981.
References:
The 1981 Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/1106/pdfs/uksi_19811106_en.pdf +
The first assertion of the freedom of association of Argentina can be found in Part I, Chapter 1, Article 14 of the Constitution of the Argentine Nation of 1853. The 1853 Constitution as amended to 1957 specifies association rights with reference to labor unions and trade unions. This language remains in the Constitution as amended to 1994.
References:
1853 Argentina Constitution:French translation of the original Constitution of 1853 780 (2010)
Chapter I: https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzar0007&id=2&men_tab=srchresults
1853 Argentina Constitution as amended to 1957: English text of the Constitution of 1853 consolidated as amended to 1957. 3 (2011) First Part: Declarations, Rights, and Guarantees: https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzar0015&id=7&men_tab=srchresults#
Argentina Constitution as of 1994: http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov.ar/Argentina-Constitution.pdf +
Freedom of association is asserted in Article 25 of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Armenia:
"Everyone has the right to form associations with other persons, including the right to form or join trade unions. Every citizen is entitled to form political parties with other citizens and join such parties. These rights may be restricted for persons belonging to the armed forces and law enforcement organizations. No one shall be forced to join a political party or association."
References:
1995 Constitution of the Republic of Armenia: http://www.parliament.am/legislation.php?sel=show&ID=2425&lang=eng +