Intensifying coercive tactics used by repressive states to silence critics abroad requires the set-up of specialist transnational rights protection offices, says a new paper by researchers at Lancaster University and Central European University in Vienna.
States are failing to address the impact of such Transnational Human Rights Violations (THRVs), leaving them in breach of commitments in UN treaties that require them to protect the human rights of everyone within their territory, the research shows.
While prominent acts of violence, such as the Salisbury poisoning and the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Kashoggi, have made the news, most THRVs happen out of the public eye, says the paper.
Perpetrators have been expanding surveillance and coercion against overseas targets and their families in the home country and pioneering new techniques of remote-control censorship and online harassment.
The article tells one story of an overseas student in Australia who received a video call from her parents in China, who urged her to stop criticising the Chinese government. They were flanked by a police officer who warned her she was still governed by law of China.
The top five offenders according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) are China, Turkey, Russia, Egypt and Tajikistan. But the article highlights how the phenomenon is expanding, with data from Freedom House showing that between 2014 to 2022 some 38 governments committed 854 incidents of physical transnational repression in 91 countries.
The primary targets of repressive tactics overseas have traditionally been regime opponents, political activists and human rights defenders in exile, but recent years have seen an expanding array of groups affected, including journalists, academics, legal professionals and everyday members of diaspora communities. Many of the targets are nationals of the country in which the action takes place.
Targeted people, says the article, routinely struggle to obtain help and support as local authorities are often unfamiliar with such complex situations. Although some governments have launched training to raise awareness among police forces, many THRVs do not constitute crimes under current law, or are committed remotely from beyond the government’s jurisdiction.
Published in the November issue of the Journal of Human Rights Practice, the article ‘Transnational Human Rights Violations: Addressing the Evolution of Globalized Repression through National Human Rights Institutions’ is written by Dr Andrew Chubb, Senior Lecturer in Chinese Politics and International Relations at Lancaster University and Associate Professor Kirsten Roberts Lyer, a specialist in international human rights law and practice, at the Central European University.
THRVs are, say the authors, a ‘major blind spot’ in most countries’ human rights protection arrangements, with the issue not on the radar of specialised human rights bodies like national human rights institutions such as the UK’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Domestic intelligence agencies have taken an interest where THRVs have generated threats to national security but are ill equipped to provide the support and assistance needed by those targeted.
The UK’s National Security Act (passed 2023) introduced new ‘foreign interference’ and espionage offences and severe penalties are in place in the UK for foreign-directed acts of interference against protected rights, but no charges have been brought against perpetrators of THRVs.
The paper urges the provision of new mechanisms and extra funding to ensure every individual can freely exercise their rights.
The authors propose that states must establish ‘Transnational Rights Protection Offices’ to provide a point of contact to support individuals affected by THRVs and identify necessary legislative changes. TRIPOs would be staffed by experts in the field.
They would work nationally to monitor THRVs, advise governments, develop domestic policy and legislation proposals and at international level to report and coordinate to share best practice and improve international frameworks.
Dr Chubb said: “Transnational repression very often results in silence, so it all starts with providing a contact point that can start systematically monitoring the problem from the perspective of protecting human rights. It’s not enough to just approach the problem as a national security issue — that’s only the tip of the iceberg.”
Dr Roberts Lyer added: “Governments need to recognise and act upon the obligations they have to support and protect human rights from transnational as well as domestic threats, this is currently a significant blind spot in national human rights protection.”