外国代理人还是司法代理人?私人基金会、反对非政府组织和国际人权诉讼

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2023-03-14 DOI:10.1111/lasr.12642
Heidi Nichols Haddad, Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom
{"title":"外国代理人还是司法代理人?私人基金会、反对非政府组织和国际人权诉讼","authors":"Heidi Nichols Haddad,&nbsp;Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The premise of Russia's 2012 “Foreign Agents” Law, one of the first such laws restricting foreign funding for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), is that foreign monies equal foreign agendas. Since then, over 50 countries have adopted similar laws using a similar justification. This paper interrogates this claim of foreign donor influence through examining legal mobilization by human rights NGOs at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We track donor support for litigation by providing an overview of all foundation grant flows relating to strategic litigation for 2013–2014, and then matching the granting activities of two major U.S. foundations over 14 years to human rights NGO participation in cases before the ECtHR. Further, through case studies of Russian NGOs, we assess the causal role that donor support has played in facilitating their increased involvement in ECtHR litigation. The combined analysis indicates broad patterns of private foundation support to litigating NGOs, but uncovers no evidence that foreign donors were “pushing” NGOs toward litigation as a strategy, but instead more evidence suggesting that NGOs convinced donors to support human rights litigation. Despite the inaccuracy of the justification underpinning Russia's foreign agent law, the law threatens the survival of human rights organizations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lasr.12642","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Foreign agents or agents of justice? Private foundations, backlash against non-governmental organizations, and international human rights litigation\",\"authors\":\"Heidi Nichols Haddad,&nbsp;Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lasr.12642\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The premise of Russia's 2012 “Foreign Agents” Law, one of the first such laws restricting foreign funding for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), is that foreign monies equal foreign agendas. Since then, over 50 countries have adopted similar laws using a similar justification. This paper interrogates this claim of foreign donor influence through examining legal mobilization by human rights NGOs at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We track donor support for litigation by providing an overview of all foundation grant flows relating to strategic litigation for 2013–2014, and then matching the granting activities of two major U.S. foundations over 14 years to human rights NGO participation in cases before the ECtHR. Further, through case studies of Russian NGOs, we assess the causal role that donor support has played in facilitating their increased involvement in ECtHR litigation. The combined analysis indicates broad patterns of private foundation support to litigating NGOs, but uncovers no evidence that foreign donors were “pushing” NGOs toward litigation as a strategy, but instead more evidence suggesting that NGOs convinced donors to support human rights litigation. Despite the inaccuracy of the justification underpinning Russia's foreign agent law, the law threatens the survival of human rights organizations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lasr.12642\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lasr.12642\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lasr.12642","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

俄罗斯2012年《外国代理人法》是首批限制外国资助非政府组织的法律之一,其前提是外国资金等于外国议程。自那时以来,已有50多个国家以类似的理由通过了类似的法律。本文通过审查人权非政府组织在欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)的法律动员,对外国捐助者影响的说法进行了质疑。我们通过提供2013-2014年与战略诉讼相关的所有基金会赠款流的概述,然后匹配美国两个主要基金会超过14年的赠款活动,跟踪捐助者对诉讼的支持 人权非政府组织参与欧洲人权法院审理的案件。此外,通过对俄罗斯非政府组织的案例研究,我们评估了捐助者的支持在促进他们更多地参与ECtHR诉讼方面发挥的因果作用。综合分析表明,私人基金会对提起诉讼的非政府组织的支持模式广泛,但没有发现任何证据表明外国捐助者正在“推动”非政府组织将诉讼作为一种战略,而是有更多证据表明,非政府组织说服捐助者支持人权诉讼。尽管支持俄罗斯外国代理人法的理由不准确,但该法威胁到人权组织的生存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Foreign agents or agents of justice? Private foundations, backlash against non-governmental organizations, and international human rights litigation

The premise of Russia's 2012 “Foreign Agents” Law, one of the first such laws restricting foreign funding for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), is that foreign monies equal foreign agendas. Since then, over 50 countries have adopted similar laws using a similar justification. This paper interrogates this claim of foreign donor influence through examining legal mobilization by human rights NGOs at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We track donor support for litigation by providing an overview of all foundation grant flows relating to strategic litigation for 2013–2014, and then matching the granting activities of two major U.S. foundations over 14 years to human rights NGO participation in cases before the ECtHR. Further, through case studies of Russian NGOs, we assess the causal role that donor support has played in facilitating their increased involvement in ECtHR litigation. The combined analysis indicates broad patterns of private foundation support to litigating NGOs, but uncovers no evidence that foreign donors were “pushing” NGOs toward litigation as a strategy, but instead more evidence suggesting that NGOs convinced donors to support human rights litigation. Despite the inaccuracy of the justification underpinning Russia's foreign agent law, the law threatens the survival of human rights organizations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: Founded in 1966, Law & Society Review (LSR) is regarded by sociolegal scholars worldwide as a leading journal in the field. LSR is a peer-reviewed publication for work bearing on the relationship between society and the legal process, including: - articles or notes of interest to the research community in general - new theoretical developments - results of empirical studies - and reviews and comments on the field or its methods of inquiry Broadly interdisciplinary, Law & Society Review welcomes work from any tradition of scholarship concerned with the cultural, economic, political, psychological, or social aspects of law and legal systems.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The end of family court: How abolishing the court brings justice to children and families. By Jane M. Spinak. New York: New York University Press, 2023. 384 pp. $35.00 hardcover Data and democracy at work: Advanced information technologies, labor law and the new working class. By Brishen Rogers. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2023. 288 pp. $50.00 paperback Reflections on South Africa's first Black Chief Justice, Ismail Mahomed The life and death of constitutions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1