Best Practices, Areas for Improvement, and Future Strategies

Workshop Summary

On August 21, 2024, the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) and FORUM-ASIA, with logistical support from the Asia Centre, convened a one-day workshop exploring governance practices during public emergencies. Discussions were conducted among expert researchers on best practice jurisdictions, representatives from select National Human Rights Institutions, and regional civil society with deep experience on the impact of pandemic policy on civic freedoms.

Session 1: Regional Examples of Collaborative Governance and Best Practices

In the first session, expert researchers discussed best practice policies from South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, highlighting positive examples that can be replicated in other countries. During the Taiwan case analysis, Dr. Shawn Shih-hung Shieh underscored the country’s transparency and willingness to work with civil society on pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical responses to COVID-19 as a good example demonstrating the significance of collaborative governance during public emergencies.

Dr. Bok Gyo Jeong, Associate Professor at Kean University, described the South Korean government’s effective collaboration with CSOs and the elevation of civil society actors as part of the official response team, leading to satisfactory results, including assisting immigrants in receiving important information during the pandemic.

Positive examples from New Zealand and ICNL’s report were highlighted, including a human rights-centric approach that prioritized consultation and responsiveness to civil society concerns.

Finally, a representative from the Asia Centre drew attention to numerous best practices in Japan, including the distribution of decision-making between the national and prefectural levels and the minimization of excessive states of emergencies.

The panelists discussed what could be done in countries lacking comprehensive democratic establishments, and suggested CSO advocacy could continue to push for government accountability and engagement.

Session 2: National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) Perspectives on Protecting Civic Freedoms During Public Emergencies

Representatives from national human rights institutions in Asia commented on their experiences protecting rights and civic freedoms during the pandemic, reflecting on ways to improve responsiveness in the future.

A representative from the National Human Rights Commission of Korea explained that the Commission has been active in providing facilities to respond to the pandemic and encouraging government assistance to residents and vulnerable groups, as well as CSO collaboration with local communities. While the lockdown was in line with the ICCPR, there was ineffective communication with vulnerable groups who could not go to public health centers for COVID-19 appointments and receive appropriate treatment. At-home quarantine posed a risk for persons clustered together with limited space and insufficient staff. One of the major limitations for citizens during public emergencies was the lack of legal safeguards, putting them in a weaker position to argue with government policies and restrictions.

A representative from the Commission on Human Rights, Philippines (CHRP) stressed that unprecedented human rights violations were committed during the pandemic in the country. In response, CHRP provided hotlines offering help and answering questions about human rights protection in addition to conducting online campaigns and advocacy sessions. In the future, CHRP plans to enhance previous work and insist on an accessible, people-first policy.

A representative from the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal explained that when the lockdowns were enacted, people’s psychological well-being was affected, leading to anxiety and isolation. In Nepal, masks and medical assistance were inaccessible, especially to vulnerable groups.

Commentary from two civil society interveners responded to the NHRI interventions, noting that countries needed to take a better approach to equitable treatment and addressing vulnerable groups – as well as safeguarding civic freedoms – in future emergencies.

Session 3: Addressing the Legacies of COVID-19 Governance

In the third session, civic freedoms tracking researchers discussed key themes and takeaways from emergency lawmaking and its impact on civic freedoms over the past several years, what remains in place, and strategies for reform and moving forward.

Examples of excessive emergency lawmaking were discussed, noting violations of freedom of expression, particularly when excessive pandemic countermeasures were taken, e.g. in India, where local authorities reportedly abused some of the national pandemic measures, taking advantage of citizens without accountability.

Many restrictions resulting from COVID-19 remain in place, despite the pandemic’s end. Online activities in many countries continue to be monitored, and the police will send direct messages to citizens if they post government critiques. Cybercrime laws are also being used by governments to further restrict civic space. All these controls lack reasonable justification.

Moving forward, the experts noted strategies for CSOs to advocate against lasting restrictive measures and other negative pandemic legacies. An expert from the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (AHPR) spoke about how CSOs should collaborate and transcend traditional boundaries to push back on the restrictions imposed by the government using the pandemic as justification. Additionally, coalition building and flexibility are essential because CSOs should go beyond their usual roles and transform themselves into service providers during emergencies. Another expert said that CSOs must continue or start to use documentation as a means for recording civic freedom violations. Finally, social media should be considered a powerful tool for documentation and amplifying citizen and CSO voices.

Session 4: Workshopping Strategies for the Future

For the final session, participants split into multistakeholder groups to brainstorm approaches to improving compliance with civic freedoms and the implementation of international human rights law in policy, especially during crises. Breakout groups addressed the following questions:

Q1. How are you addressing negative legacies and laws from the COVID-19 era to promote a more enabling environment? What are some effective strategies that worked?

One group emphasized the importance of digital access, digital literacy, and the role of digital intermediaries. Other methods of addressing the negative legacies mentioned were holistic approaches to policy drafting, framing, and implementation, creating a space for NGOs to communicate, addressing barriers to access to government services, and cooperating with different sectors.

Q2. How can we build effective cross-sectoral, regional, and global alliances to protect civic freedoms, in future emergencies and in general?

Groups discussed sharing best practices amongst each other and maximizing coordination between CSOs and the government during public emergencies. CSOs should also work with local societies and business associations to join in collaborative governance.

Q3. What is the biggest lesson for you around protecting human rights during times of emergency?

Lessons learned include investing in both state and nonstate relationships, learning how to provide services and access to resources as well as how to expose abuses, collaborating among different sectors and important government entities, and the importance of transparency and documentation.