The Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. Credit: Mathias Reding on Unsplash

By Sigrid Lipott
GENEVA, Nov 6 2026 (IPS)

A right under pressure

No one disputes freedom of association. It is in the Constitutions of almost every country, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 22 of the ICCPR, and in regional Articles in Europe, America, and Africa. What it has never had, at the universal level, is sincere implementation by governments.

Regional organisations and courts have filled that space in limited ways. Courts and human rights commissions have issued decisions that have not always been followed. States are left to interpret these obligations themselves for citizens and non-citizens in their jurisdiction.

Violations of the right to free association have risen 50% in two years, according to CIVICUS Monitor. The rise is not only a matter of scale. Governments are no longer relying mainly on administrative interference or political pressure to constrain civil society. They devise restrictive laws governing who can organise, on what terms, and access to resources. Restricting international funding for civil society, particularly through foreign agents’ laws, is now a global trend and poses unprecedented significant challenges. In 2025, restrictive laws affecting civic freedoms were recorded in at least 66 countries, the ninth most prevalent civic space violation worldwide.

Sigrid Lipott

Rights and recognition for everyone

Article 22 clearly says everyone has the right to come together, but it does not specify who counts. On protest rights, General Comment No. 37 says all citizens and non-citizens hold the right, including migrants , asylum seekers, refugees and stateless people. Article 22 should follow the precedent.

Most of the world’s organising happens in grassroots movements, digital networks, and fluid conflict and humanitarian contexts, not with registered organisations. Restrictions fall hardest on those already excluded from decision-making and resources.

The article defines qualifications on national security, public order, and safeguards and rights of others. Without clarity, they have remained fluid since 1966. The Committee needs to clarify the scope.

States cannot be left to interpret the article. Amid rising authoritarianism and divisive politics impacting civic life and participatory governance, minorities and excluded people need strong freedom of association protection to defend their rights.

Registration is among the worst restrictions because authorities treat it as routine paperwork rather than a decision about whether a group may exist at all. The Committee should state plainly that registration means notifying the authorities, not asking permission, and that any procedure must be simple, quick, and free of official discretion. Organisations should not be required to comply with “national interest ” or meet disproportionate reporting demands. Penalties for administrative slip-ups should fit the offence, and only a court should be able to shut an organisation down, as a last resort.

Funding is critical for survival

Foreign agents’ laws have spread from a handful of states to dozens, with vague definitions of “foreign influence” and “political activity” that let officials choose their targets. These come with heavy reporting duties, frequent audits, and penalties ranging from fines to licence withdrawal and prison.

Other measures achieve the same effect without the label: prior approval for foreign grants, punitive taxes, or rules forcing funds through state-controlled accounts. Where foreign support is the only resource available, organisations will struggle to survive.

Funding is critical to securing freedom. The Committee should recognise the right to seek, receive and use resources from domestic, foreign and international sources, whether or not a group is registered.

Online and across borders

Groups now recruit, debate and organise online, so internet shutdowns and surveillance strike directly at freedom of association. Governments imposed a record 313 shutdowns in 2025, up from 304 the year before, according to Access Now, and people in 100 countries have lived through one since tracking began. Blanket shutdowns are disproportionate, even in conflict zones.

Governments increasingly pursue critics abroad through surveillance, harassment of relatives back home, misuse of Interpol and stripping of nationality, cutting exiles off from organisations at home. This transnational repression is also a restriction on association and should be named.

No justification without limits

In dozens of countries, counter-terrorism laws criminalise people for exercising basic freedoms. A government’s own definition of “security” cannot override its treaty obligations, and none of these grounds justifies criminalising organisations for lawful work. Emergency powers follow the same pattern.

At least 50 states restricted freedom of association during the pandemic, and many of those measures outlasted the crisis, as independent UN human rights experts warned they might. The Committee should set out categories of emergency and the limits each can justify, matching the real scale of the threat.

Enabling environment without

Governments must also create the conditions for civil society to thrive, including laws that meet international standards, access to information, a real say in decisions and lasting access to resources. A good law achieves little if officials publicly smear the groups it protects.

That means protecting people from intimidation, arbitrary arrest, smear campaigns, travel bans and reprisals for cooperating with the UN. Freedom of association cannot be separated from freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, just 7% of the world’s population lives in countries where these civic freedoms are broadly respected.

Building on regional courts

The European Court of Human Rights has built a rich body of case law treating freedom of association as essential to a pluralist democracy. In 2020, the EU’s Court of Justice struck down Hungary’s 2017 law on foreign-funded organisations as incompatible with freedom of association. The African and Inter-American human rights commissions have also set progressive standards.

But these rulings apply only within their regions, and even there, groups defending minority rights or exposing sensitive issues still come under attack. A universal standard would give everyone, everywhere, something to invoke.

Sixty years, one opportunity

Article 22 has waited, and the wait has had consequences. Restrictive laws survive because the standard is vague enough to accommodate them: a registration regime is presented as administration, a funding restriction as transparency, a ban as security. At the global level, nothing has tested those claims.

General Comment No. 38 can change that. It can give parliaments, courts and governments the detail they need to draft laws, interpret them and respect the limits of their power, at a moment when restrictions are spreading faster than the standards meant to contain them.

Freedom of association is a right that makes other freedoms enforceable. The Covenants turn sixty this year. At this critical juncture, the Committee must give it the clarity it deserves.

Sigrid Lipott is an international treaties specialist and the UN adviser at CIVICUS. Based in Geneva, Switzerland, she leads CIVICUS’s engagement with UN human rights mechanisms. CIVICUS is a global alliance of more than 17,000 civil society organisations and activists from 175 countries working to strengthen citizen action and defend civic freedoms worldwide.

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt: