In recent years, several states across Europe have passed legislation which aims to suppress voices of dissent or opposition. Echoing key elements of the 2012 Russian Foreign Agents law, states such as Georgia and more recently Turkey, have begun to implement similar legislation; this has set a disconcerting legislative precedent in two supposed democracies. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the archetypal foreign agent law violates fundamental rights and exhibits the “hallmarks of totalitarianism”, imposing punitive sanctions on NGOs and curtailing journalists’ ability to participate in public life. The Georgian and Turkish laws have retained these authoritarian features.
Georgia’s law was first floated in 2023, later repealed, and then reintroduced in 2024, much to the consternation of Georgian opposition parties and the pro-Western president Salome Zourabichvili, who publicly denounced the development. The law speciously and disingenuously claimed to regulate the “registration of an entity as an organization pursuing the interest of a foreign power”, stressing that it would not hinder the operations of such organisations should they register themselves. The legislation stipulates that any organisation that receives more than 20 percent of its “income” from foreign sources would be subject to new registration requirements. While these laws do not explicitly prohibit or hamper the administration of these organisations, they would severely impede their capacity to function and would subject the targeted organisations to public scrutiny.
Turkey’s new law supposedly adopts a “security-oriented approach”. The law stipulates that “anyone who, following instructions from a foreign state or organization, commits actions against national security or political interests may face three to seven years in prison.” The draft law would moreover criminalise legitimate activities such as the documentation of human rights abuses. Moreover, if these activities are committed during war time, sentences of eight to twelve years could be issued. Amnesty International fears that the ambiguity of the laws could lead to arbitrary interpretation that could see journalists, civil society organisations and human rights defenders targeted and ostracised. Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç offered reassurances the law would not be used indiscriminately to target and penalise anybody conducting research in the country; however, this is not the first attempt to silence dissent and as such this legislation appears this legislation appears to reflect a general trend of authoritarianism in the country.
The Georgian government’s decision to reinstate the law is, according to some observers, ostensibly intended to counter growing EU and US influence, which coupled with rapidly souring public sentiment, could prevent the incumbent party from attaining a parliamentary majority. Others maintain that election victory would likely be guaranteed following repeated claims of election rigging, but that the legislation portends an incremental clampdown on civil liberties and evinces the government’s nefarious intentions. The developments may also augur a significant realignment of allegiances in the region. In the face of the promotion of democratic values and human rights, authoritarian regimes may feel concerned that their iron grip on power is loosening, and thus the branding of NGOs and media outlets as proxies for foreign interference provides such regimes with a convenient pretext to inhibit their capacity to operate, demagogically sow division among citizens, and delegitimise their activities under the guise of ensuring national security. Rather counterproductively, the law appears to have fomented anti-Russian invective among vast swathes of the population. The incumbent Georgian government is often accused of harbouring pro-Russian sympathies and therefore the foreign agent law is widely regarded as an active attempt by the government to sabotage accession to the EU and combat the country’s growing anti-Russian sentiment. Many Turkish NGOs likewise fear a regression to more authoritarian practices as the government appears to become more politically and religiously conservative and seeks to consolidate power.
The notion of a government wishing to maintain its sovereignty and security is not what the ECHR and Western governments take issue with. In fact, the UK employed similar law called the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS) as part of its 2023 National Security Act and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) has been in effect in the US since 1938.
What distinguishes this legislation from that of Georgia and Turkey is the explicit requirement that the agents of foreign principles be engaged in political influence activities under the directive of foreign entities. While FARA has its origins in weeding out entities acting on behalf of Nazi Germany and targeted only those engaged in criminal activity, Georgia’s legislation has targeted Georgian NGOs which work lawfully to the benefit of the Georgian population. The original Russian law was tellingly justified by the Kremlin through an attempt to equivalate it to FARA, but the US government lambasted this as a “cheap disinformation ploy to distract from its abuse of its own criminal justice system”.
Any aspirations these nations held for joining the EU have consequently been jeopardised, as the European High Representative has communicated its unequivocal condemnation of the Georgian legislation, branding it incompatible with European ideals. It also censured Turkey for the undemocratic targeting of journalists, but as the draft law is in its infancy, it remains to be seen whether the High Representative will openly criticise it.
These foreign agent laws moreover contravene multiple stipulations of International Law such as principle 47, mandating there should be:
“no external intervention in the running of NGOs should take place until and unless a breach of the administrative, civil or criminal law, insurance obligations, fiscal or similar regulations occurs or is thought imminent.”
International law moreover grants NGOs the right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which in both cases would be violated. The European Convention on Human Rights likewise enshrines the right to freedom of expression, and freedom of association and assembly, in Articles 10 and 11 respectively. Article 41 of the ICCPR provides a dispute resolution mechanism that has never been utilised. This worrying legislative trend could prove the ideal occasion for its inaugural use, and this may be an approach that international institutions pursue. That being said, the soft power of international institutions such as the EU has proven to be of little significance. In the case of Georgia, threats of freezing financial aid or blocking their accession to the EU has done little to deter the incumbent Georgian Dream party.
This legislation will also serve to disquiet NGOs and journalists in both nations as it becomes unnervingly more apparent that the democratic character of each nation is now a façade. Foreign agent laws remain a concerning trend which threaten the operation of civil society, and it appears as though international law will have next to no effect in dissuading regimes from their crackdowns on political freedoms unless a more robust approach is adopted. Local NGOs intend to challenge the law, but this appears to be largely a symbolic action. As more countries seek to maintain their national security through the implementation of foreign agent laws, it remains to be seen if these laws presage the coming of more repressive and pernicious restrictions.
Image by Tbel Abuseridze via Unsplash