GLOBAL  PHILANTHROPY  IN  A   TIME  OF   CRISIS  
Letter  from  the  Editor  
As the  global  financial  crisis  continues  to  cut  into  corporate  profits,  slash endowments,  and  exacerbate  
government  deficits,  policy  makers  and other  interested  stakeholders  in  the  global  philanthropic  
community  brace  for  the  impact.   At the  same  time, the  crisis  has  fueled  a rising  need  for charitable  
support.  By  one  estimate,  the  crisis  has  “already  driven  more  than  50  million  people  into  extreme  
poverty,  particularly  women  and  children.”
1  
Both  government  and  private  donors  around  the  world  are  seeking  ways  to  protect  the  neediest  even  as 
resources  become  more scarce.   As some  countries  have  shown,  laws  designed  to  facilitate  philanthropy  
and  remove  barriers  to  cross  border  giving  can  play  an  important  role  in meeting  such  development  
goals.   Nonetheless,  a  number  of  governments  have  continued  to  raise  barriers  to  cross  border  
philanthropy,  even  as  the  economic  crisis  deepens.    
In  this  issue  of  Global  Trends  we  examine  legal developments  affecting  global  philanthropy,  particularly  
obstacles  to  foreign  philanthropy  and  assistance.   In Section  I,  we  consider  the  most  recent  laws,  draft 
laws,  and government  actions  restricting  cross ‐border  giving.  Section  II  examines  potential  responses  to  
these  restrictions.    
We  continue  to  invite  all  of our  readers  to submit  developments,  comments,  and ideas  online  by  visiting  
https://www.icnl.org/globaltrends/
.   
GLOBAL   TRENDS  IN  NGO  LAW  IS A  PUBLICATION  OF THE   INTERNATIONAL   CENTER FOR  NOT‐FOR ‐PROFIT   LAW , AN INTERNATIONAL  NOT ‐
FOR ‐PROFIT ORGANIZATION  THAT PROMOTES  AN ENABLING  ENVIRONMENT FOR  CIVIL SOCIETY  AND PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION  WORLDWIDE . 
SINCE ITS INCEPTION IN   1992,  ICNL  HAS PROMOTED  PROGRESSIVE  LAWS GOVERNING  CIVIL SOCIETY  AND PROVIDED  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  
TO  
NGO  LAW  REFORM  INITIATIVES  IN MORE  THAN ONE HUNDRED  COUNTRIES . WE  INVITE  YOU TO LEARN  MORE ABOUT   ICNL  AND  OUR  
PROGRAMS  BY VISITING  US ONLINE  AT HTTP
:// WWW .ICNL .ORG .    

Introduction  
In September  2000, 192  United  Nations  member  states  adopted  the United  Nations Millennium  
Declaration .   The  Declaration  committed  nations  to  a  new  global  partnership  to reduce  extreme  poverty  
and  established  a series  of  time‐bound  targets ‐ with a  deadline  of  2015  ‐ that  have  become  known  as  
the  Millennium  Development  Goals  (MDGs).
2  Secretary  General Ban  Ki‐moon  recently  warned,  “the
financial crisis threatens the foundations of globalizat ion, which in turn underpins global growth. As we
look to the next seven years of our work on the Millennium Development Goals, we must ensure that our
gains are not reversed.”
3   Donor  countries  have  pledged  under MDG  No.  8  to  increase  aid  from  $80  
billion  in  2004  to  $130  billion  by  2010.
4  In  order  for the  level  of aid  committed  for  2010  to  be  met,  
donor  contributions  will  have  to  increase  significantly  over  the  next  two  years.
5  
Donor  governments  will  certainly  play a  major  role in blunting  the  impact  of  the  global  economic  crisis  
on  low  income  countries.    But  they  will  be  most  effective  in  meeting  growing  development  needs  if  they  
join  with  other  development  partners.   The  United  States  Secretary  of State  Hillary  Clinton  recognized  as 
much  in  her  speech  to  the  Global  Philanthropy  Forum  announcing  the  Global  Partnership  Initiative.  She  
made  clear that  in  pursuit  of  the  United  States development  goals,  the Department  of  State  will  seek  
partnerships  “with  philanthropy,  with  global  business,  partnerships  with  civil  society.”
6 
  “So  in  that  spirit,  I’m  here  today  to  announce  that  the State  Department  is opening  its doors  to  a 
new  generation  of  public ‐private  partnerships.  We  will  expand  current  partnerships  and  embark  
on  new  ones.  We’ll  embrace  collaboration  and  become  more  receptive  to  the  ideas  and  
approaches  that  you  will  bring  to  us.“
7 
At  the  same  time  that global  philanthropy  is  called  upon to join  with  government  to  meet  growing  
development  needs,  the  rise  of  “philanthropic  protectionism”
 threatens  to close  civic  space  as 
governments  seek  to  reduce  influence  of foreign  donors  during  a time  of economic  uncertainty.  A  
number  of  countries  have  adopted  laws  or  policies  imposing  barriers  to  foreign  funding  of NGOs  
operating  within  their  borders.   As funding  to  NGOs  is  an  important  part  of  the  assistance  allocated  for 
development  purposes,  these restrictions  have  serious  implications  for  both  government  and  private  
donors.    
The  reasons  given  by  governments  adopting  these  restrictions  vary.
8 Some  have  cited  the  need  to  meet  
international  demands  to  curb  terrorist  financing;  
 others cite  the  need  to  coordinate  and  increase  the  
effectiveness  of  foreign  aid;  and still  others  raise  concerns  about  preventing  intrusions  upon  national  
sovereignty.   In  many  cases  these are  merely  rhetorical  justifications,  and  in  any  event  they  will  have  a  
deleterious  impact  on  foreign  philanthropy  and  assistance.   
I. Barriers  to  Foreign  Philanthropy  
Government imposed  restrictions  on  foreign  funding  of domestic  NGOs  are  not  a  new  phenomenon;  
India  enacted  its Foreign  Contribution  (Regulation)  Act  in  1976,  and  laws  in  some  countries  of  the  
Middle  East/North  Africa  region  have  restricted  foreign  funding  of  domestic  groups  for  decades.   As the  
“backlash”  against  civil  society  has  grown,
9 however,  the number  of  countries  enacting  or  considering  
such  restrictions  has  increased.  These laws  and  draft  laws  construct  various types  of  impediments  that  
have  differing  implications  for  NGO  activities.   These  impediments  include:    
1) Complete  prohibition  of  certain  types  of  foreign  funding.   Eritrea,  for  example,  broadly  restricts  
the  U.N.  and  bilateral  agencies  from  funding  NGOs.   In Afghanistan,  a  Cabinet  of  Ministers  
decree  prohibits  foreign  funding  of  social  organizations,  one of  two  key  NGO  organizational  
forms  in  the  country.  
2) Requirements  that  government  grant  permission  before organizations  may receive  foreign  
funding .  Countries  of  the  Middle  East/North  Africa  region,  including  Algeria,  Bahrain,  Oman,  
and  Egypt,  as  well  as countries  of  the  Former  Soviet  Union,  including  Belarus,  Uzbekistan,  and  
Turkmenistan,  require  an  NGO  to receive  advance  approval  from  a  government  Ministry  before  
accepting  funds  from  abroad.  

3) Prohibitions  on  foreign  funding  of  particular  recipients.   An  NGO  Bill enacted  in  Zimbabwe  but 
not  signed  into law  would  have prohibited  NGOs  engaged  in  “issues  of  governance”  from  
receiving  foreign  funds.  
4) Routing  Funding  through  the  Government .  “International  Cooperation”  laws  proposed  in 
several  Latin  American  counties  would  require  channeling  of foreign  funding  through  a 
government  controlled  entity.  Eritrea requires  donor  funds  to  flow  through  government  
ministries,  while  Uzbekistan  requires  that  all  foreign  funds  be  deposited  in  one  of  two  
government  controlled  banks,  which  has  allowed  the  government  to  disrupt  funding to  intended  
recipients.   
5) Prohibitive  tax  burdens.   In the  Russia  example  cited below,  grants  from  foreign  organizations  
that  are  not  included  on  the  government  approved  list  of  donors  are  subject  to  taxation.  
6) Other  restrictions.   Visa restrictions  and  other  barriers  to  aid  workers  and volunteers  may  
interrupt  the  provision  of cross‐border  technical  assistance.  
We  consider  below  recent  examples  of  restrictions  on  cross  border  giving,  which  have  occurred  in  
categories  2 ‐6  above.
10   
1.  Prior  Government  Permission  
Some countries  have  or  are  considering  laws that  would  require  NGOs  to  receive  prior  government  
permission  before receiving  foreign  funds.  
 
• In March  2009  the  Iraqi  government  sent  to  the  legislature  a  draft  federal  law  that requires  
NGOs  receiving  donations,  grants  or  bequests  “from  within  the  Republic  of  Iraq  or  from  abroad”  
to  obtain  prior  approval  from  the  Department  of  NGOs  in  the  Secretariat  of  the  Council  of  
Ministers,  and also  requires  individuals  who  wish  to  donate  to  NGOs  to  notify  this  Department  
ahead  of  time.
11 The  law  does  not  specify  how  permission  is  obtained  or  on  what  grounds  
permission  will  be  granted  or  denied.   This  is  one  of  the  broader  restrictions  proposed  in  recent  
years,  constraining  foreign  and  domestic  funding  alike, and  placing  a  potentially  severe  burden  
in  the  way  of  NGO  sustainability.    
 
NGOs  have  actively  sought  to expand  consultation  within  their  community  about  the  draft  and  
to  advocate  for  changes  to  the  funding  provision,  among  others.  In  April,  the  Speaker  of the  
Parliament,  Iyad  al ‐Samarrai,  stated  on  the  Council  of  Representatives  website  that  he  would  be 
willing  to  consider  revision  to  the  funding  provision.
12 
 
• The  government  of  Yemen  is  currently  considering  amendments  to  its  2001  Law  on  Associations  
and  Foundations  that,  similar  to  the  draft  law  in Iraq,  would  require  domestic  associations  and  
foundations  to  obtain  permission  from  the  Minister  of Labor  and Social  Affairs  before  obtaining  
any  “material  or  financial  support  from  a  foreign  person  or  from  foreign  actors,  either abroad  or  
within  the  Republic.”
13 The  Ministry  would  have significant  discretion  to  deny  funding  to 
organizations,  and certain  types  of  organizations  that  may  rely heavily  on  foreign  funding  could  
potentially  be  starved  of  resources,  essentially  extinguishing  their  rights  to  associate.  
  • In 2008  Jordan  enacted  the  Law  on  Societies,  which  requires  NGOs  to  submit  an  application  to  
the  government  before  accepting  any  contribution,  grant,  or  funding  from  a  foreign  source.
14  If  
the  Ministry  does  not  decide  on  an  application  within  30  days,  it is  considered  granted. The  law 
gives  the  government  the  authority  to  order  “appropriate”  measures  for  violations  of  this  
provision,  including  the  funds’  return  to  the  funder  or  transfer  to  a  newly  created  Fund  for  the  
Support  of  Societies.  A  person who  retains  or  uses  foreign  funds  that  were  not  declared  or  not  
approved  can be  imprisoned  for  three  month  or more,  fined between  1000  and  10,000  JD,  or  
both.   Such persons  are also  barred  from  serving  on  the  board  of  any  Jordanian  association.  
 

While the government  has  prepared  amendments  to  the  Law  that evidence  a  willingness  to  
make  many improvements  sought  by NGOs,  it  has  thus  far  held  firm  to  its  position  that  the  
foreign  funding  provision  will remain.   The  Parliament  is expected  to  consider  amendments  to  
the  Law  on Societies  this  summer;  NGOs  continue  to  advocate  for  elimination  of  the  foreign  
funding  requirement.  
  • Indonesia  requires  social  organizations  that  seek  to  receive  or  provide  donations  to  or  from  
foreign  entities  to  engage  in  an exhaustive  approval  and  reporting  process.   A  2008  regulation  
prohibits  foreign  assistance  causing  “social anxiety  and  disorder  of  national  and  regional  
economy.”
15  This  regulation  requires  NGOs  to  register  with the  government,  seek  Ministry  of  
Home  Affairs’  approval  for  foreign  funding,  pay  tax on  the  funds  and  publicize  foreign ‐funded  
activities  through  the  media.
16    According  to  a  local  expert,  the regulations  should  only  apply  to 
social  organizations  and  not  foundations  and  associations,  although  the  Ministry  of  Internal  
Affairs  continues  to  insist  that  all  organizations  are  “social  organizations”  subject  to  this  set  of  
regulations.
17     
 
In  some  cases, countries  with  existing  prior  approval  requirements  have  stepped  up  their  enforcement  
efforts:  
 
• Since  1978
18 Bangladeshi  NGOs  receiving  foreign  contributions  have  had  to  register  with  the  
NGO  Affairs  Bureau  (NGOAB)  and  each  foreign  contribution  received  by  registered  organizations  
must  be  pre ‐approved  by the  NGOAB.   In  the  past  the  NGOAB  did  not  actively  use its  powers  to  
take  action  against  NGOs  that  fail  to  comply,  but  in the  wake  of claims  that  foreign ‐funded  
NGOs  are  fuelling  the  Islamic  militancy,  the  NGOAB  has  begun  to  scrutinize  NGO  funding  sources  
more  closely.
19 In  March  2009,  the  Bangladeshi  Finance  minister  A.M.A.  Muhith  confirmed  this,  
stating,  “from  now  on the  scrutiny  would  be made  more intense.”
20 
 
• In  Egypt  on  April  27,  2009  the  Egyptian  Organization  for  Human  Rights  (EOHR)  received  a  
dissolution  decree, alleging that  the  EOHR  received  foreign  funding  without  authorization.
21 The  
dissolution  order reportedly  came soon after  EOHR  published  its  2008  Annual  Report  critical  of  
the  Egyptian  government.
22 An  Egyptian  administrative  court  found  in  a prior  case  involving  
another  NGO  that  dissolution  of an  organization  based  on  receipt  of  foreign  funds  without  prior 
approval  is  unconstitutional.
23     
 
Governments  that  require  prior approval  for  an  NGO  to  receive  foreign  funds  may  limit  the  
independence  of  civil  society.   This  type  of restriction  raises  concerns  that  government  will  exercise  its  
discretion  over  the approval  process  to  limit  funding  to classes  of  NGOs  disfavored  by  government,  a 
burden  that often  falls  most  heavily  on  advocacy  or  human  rights  groups.   Prior approval  requirements  
can  be  used  to  starve  certain  NGOs  of  resources,  forcing  their  closures  or  suspension  of  activities.   
Alternately,  they may  chill NGO  expression,  as groups  avoid  controversial  positions that  may  cause  
government  officials  to  terminate  their  funding  sources.  
2. Particular  NGOs  or  Recipients  Ineligible  
Some governments  have  carved  out  areas  where  NGOs  receiving  foreign  funding  cannot  participate  or  
they  have  singled  out  certain  categories  of  recipients  ineligible  to  receive  foreign  resources.    
 
• In early  2009  the  Kyrgyz  Republic  proposed  legislation  granting  authorities  broad  discretion  to  
prohibit  branches  and  representative  offices  of  foreign  NGOs  from  financing  ,  “a  certain  
recipient,  with  the  purposes  of  protecting  constitutional  bases,  morality,  health, rights  and  legal  
interests  of  other  people,  guarantee  of  country’s  defense and  security.”   After  the  NGO  
community  engaged  with  the  government  to  advocate  for  changes  to  the  proposed  law,  an  
“Agreement  on  Cooperation”  between  the  government  and  NGOs  was  reached  in  early  May  
2009,  and  key  government  official  stated that  the President’s  position  is  that  no  law  imposing 
discriminatory  restrictions  on  NGOs  will  be  adopted.
24  

• Amendments  to  a  Russian  law  provides  a  registration  authority  the  power  to ban  the  transfer  by  
a  foreign  organization’s  branches,  representative  offices,  or affiliates  of  funds  or  other  resources  
to  particular  recipients for  the  purposes  of  “protecting  the basis  of  the  Constitutional  system, 
morality,  health,  rights  and  lawful  interests  of  other  persons,  and with  the  aim  of  defending  the  
country  and  the  state  security.”
25   
 
• A new  Ethiopian  law  provides  that  an  NGO  that  receives  more  than  10%  of  its  funding  from  a  
foreign  source  may  not participate  in  the  following  activities:   human and  democratic  rights;  
equality  of  genders,  religions and  nationalities;  the  rights  of  children  and the  disabled;  conflict  
resolution  and  reconciliation;  and  “the  promotion  of the  efficiency  of  the  justice  and  law 
enforcement  services.”
26 The  government  has  justified  the  law  by claiming  the  charity  sector  has  
been  used  by “political  activists” who  are  working  on  “other  issues,”  not  “catastrophes  that  
required  aid  and  assistance.  “
27 
 
Prohibitions  on  funding  of  particular  recipients  clearly  disadvantage  the  identified  classes  of  NGOs,  and  
may  force  the  closures  of  such  organization  by  denying  them  funds.  As  is  true  of other  types  of  foreign  
funding  restrictions,  this  is  of  particular  concern  in countries  where  local  sources  of  financing  are  very  
limited  and NGOs  are  thus  dependent  on  foreign  funding.   Alternately,  NGOs  may  abandon  disfavored  
missions  or  activities  if  they  cannot  raise  funds  locally  to  sustain  them.    
3. Routing  Funding  Through  the Government  
“International  Cooperation”  laws  may  require  that  foreign  funding  to  be  channeled  via  a  government  
fund.  
• The  Venezuelan  National Assembly  announced  in  March  2009  that  it  will  renew  consideration  of 
the  draft  Law  on  International  Cooperation.
28  The Law  on International  Cooperation  was  
introduced  and passed  its  first  reading  in  2006.   It was  the  first  such  “international  cooperation 
law”  in  Latin  America,  and  influenced  similar  laws and  drafts  in  Bolivia,  Peru,  and Mexico.   The  
Law  if enacted  will  give  the  President  and  Cabinet  of  Venezuela  unprecedented  authority  to 
organize,  control,  direct,  and  coordinate  all  “activities  of  international  cooperation,”  including  
transfers  of  assets,  technology,  and  other  forms  of  material  support.  The  law  requires  NGOs  to  
register  in order  to  receive  support  from  abroad  or  to  take  advantage  of  tax  incentives;  and 
NGOs  engaging  with their  foreign  counterparts  would  be  required  to  provide  detailed  reports  
and  submit  to  government  inspections  and  audits,  which  might  easily  lead  to  harassment  and  
abuse  of  NGOs.
29   
  Under the  law,  all  foreign  funds  would  have  to  be  routed  through  a  “Fund  for  International  
Cooperation  and  Assistance,”  allowing  the  government  discretion  to  determine  which  local  
organizations  could  receive  financing.  The  Fund’s  stated  purpose  is to  finance,  “in  conformity  
with  the  priorities  of  foreign  policy  and  national  convenience,”  the  programs  and  other  activities  
of  Venezuela  relating  to  international  cooperation.   Much about  the  Fund’s  operations  is  
unclear,  as  details  have  been  left  to  implementing  regulations.  Venezuelan  NGOs  have  
expressed  concern  that  the Fund  will  be  used  to  “financially  strangle”  disfavored  groups.
30 
  • Sri Lanka  appears  to  be  prepared  to  follow  the  Venezuelan  model.  In March  2009,  Sri  Lankan  
Defense  Spokesman  Minister Keheliya  Rambukwella  said,  “
The aid or grants coming from other
foreign countries should not directly go to the INGOs or NGOs and should be channeled through
the government’s management and the administration
.”31  The  Social  Services  Ministry  expects  to 
get  the  “necessary”  legislation  approved  soon for  an  NGO  law under  which  all  INGOs  and  NGOs  
would  have to  be  registered  with  a  central  Agency.
32  
 
The  Venezuelan  model  is particularly  troublesome,  in  that  it  purports  to give  the  government  authority  
to  appropriate  private  resources  for  the  government’s  priorities.   Donors  most  likely  will  react  to  the  law 
by  declining  to  provide  funding  to  Venezuelan  groups,  because  they do  not  want  their  funds  directed  to 

a foreign  government  entity.   The  practical  consequence  will  be  the likely  elimination  of  most  foreign  
philanthropy  to  Venezuela.  
4. Prohibitive  Taxation  
While tax frameworks  have  often  been  used  to encourage  philanthropy,  some  governments  are  
employing  prohibitive  taxes  to  discourage  foreign philanthropy.    
 
• In Russia,  under  Presidential  Decree,  #485, issued  in  June  2008,  foreign  grants  to  local  NGOs  are  
taxed  up to  24%  unless  the  donor  is  on  a  government  approved  list.   In the  past,  a  limited  
number  of  foreign  NGOs  were  able  to get  on  the  list,  but  following  issuance  of  the  Decree,  
almost  no  foreign  organizations  are  listed.    
In  contrast,  some  governments  are  working  to  support  greater  cross ‐border  philanthropy.  
• In 2008,  the  Mexican  government  worked  together  with NGOs  to  implement  several  reforms  to  
encourage  cross ‐border  philanthropy.   Specifically,  the  government  took  measures  to  reinforce  
the  applicability  of  the  US ‐Mexico  bilateral  treaty,
33  which  eases  burdens  for  US  foundations 
interested  in  making  grants  to  Mexican  charities.     
5. Other  Restrictions  
Barriers to cross ‐border  giving  are  not  limited  to  restrictions  on  funding.   Some countries  have  sought  to  
impose  restrictions  on  employees  and  volunteers  providing  assistance,  expelled  organizations  and  aid  
workers,  or  imposed  banking and  currency  restrictions  that  hinder  philanthropy.     
 
• The  Sri  Lankan  government  has  taken  steps to  restrict  entry  of  foreign  NGO  workers  and  
volunteers.  During  the  summer  of  2008  the  government  began  cancelling  or  denying  extensions  
for  visas  issued  to  foreign  NGO  workers  for “security  reasons.”
  34  U.N.  workers  are permitted  to 
stay  on  four ‐year  visas  which  may  be extended  in  exceptional  cases.  But a  senior  U.N.  worker  
said  the rules  would  affect dozens  of  foreign  volunteers  who  work  for  U.N.  Volunteers  (UNV).
35 
• After  the International  Criminal  Court  (ICC)  issued  a  warrant  for  Sudanese  president  Omar al ‐
Bashir,  the  government  of  Sudan  expelled  thirteen  International  NGOs.
36  According  to  the  UN  
halting  the  NGOs’  operations  would  leave 1.1  million  people  without  food,  1.5  million  without  
healthcare  and at  least  one  million  without  drinking  water, The  UN  describes  the  groups  as  
“integral”  to  the  world’s  biggest  humanitarian  operation.
37  A senior  U.N.  humanitarian  affairs 
official,  Rashid  Khalikov,  reported  “significant  signs  of  an  erosion  of  humanitarian  response  
capacity,  with  a  concurrent  impact  on  the  lives  of  people  in  Darfur”  since  the  13  foreign  and  
three  domestic  NGOs  were  expelled.”
38 
• In Zimbabwe  the  government  controlled  Reserve  Bank  of Zimbabwe  (RBZ)  in September  2007  
demanded  that all  foreign  currency  deposits  of  foreign  funded  NGOs  and  humanitarian  
organizations  be  held  by the  central  bank  on  their  behalf.
39 Many  Zimbabwean  NGOs  were  
threatened  with  closure  when the  RBZ  was  not  able  to release  their  foreign  funding  as  a result  
of  the  foreign  currency  shortages  of  2008.
40  
II.  Potential  Responses  
In confronting  actual and  potential  barriers  to  philanthropy,  it  is  important  to  consider  a  government’s  
international,  bilateral  and  domestic  legal  obligations.    
  • Many  of  the  states  enacting  restrictions  are  parties  to  one  or  more  international  conventions  
protecting  the right  to free  association.   Article 22  of the  International  Covenant on  Civil  and  
Political  Rights ,  for  example,  sets  out  the  very  limited  conditions  under  which  a  restriction  on  
the  right  to  free  association  is permissible:  the  restriction  must  be  prescribed  by law  and 

necessary in  a democratic  society in  the  interests  of  national  security, public  safety,  public order, 
the  protection  of public  health or  morals,  or the  protection  of  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  others.  
All  of the  countries  discussed  in  this  report  have  signed  and  ratified  the ICCPR.   The Universal  
Declaration  of Human  Rights  (Article  20)  (1948),  the  European  Convention  on Human  Rights  
(Article  11)  (1950)  (ECHR),  the  African  (Banjul)  Charter  on  Human  and  Peoples’  Rights  (Articles  
10  and  11)  (1982),  the  American  Convention  on Human  Rights  (Article  16)  (1978)  and  the  Arab 
Charter  on  Human  Rights  (Article  24)  all  contain  almost  identical  provisions.    
 
In  a  number  of  instances  it  has  been  argued  that  restrictions  on  foreign  funding  are  not  
consistent  with the  right  to  associate  protected  by these  conventions.   Where, for  example,  a  
law  bars  foreign  funding  of  particular  groups  in  a country  that offers  few  if any  local  sources  of  
support,  the  result  may  be to extinguish  the  groups’  ability  to  exist,  interfering  with their  
members’  right  to associate.  This type  of  interference  is difficult  to  justify  as  necessary  in  a 
democratic  society  for  one  of  the  allowed  purposes.    
 
• The  United  Nations  Declaration  on  the  Right  and Responsibility  of  Individuals,  Groups,  and  
Organs  of Society  to  Promote  and  Protect  Universally  Recognized  Human  Rights and 
Fundamental  Freedoms  affirms  that  each  state has  the  responsibility  to  protect  human  rights  
and  fundamental  freedoms  by  “adopting  such  steps  as  may  be necessary  to  create  all conditions  
necessary…  as  well  as the  legal  guarantees  required  to  ensure”  that  all  persons  are  able  to enjoy 
these  rights  and  freedoms  (Article  2). Among  these  rights  is  the  “right,  individually  and  in  
association  with others,  to  solicit,  receive,  and utilize  resources  for the  express  purpose  of  
promoting  and protecting  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms.”
41 The  UN  High  
Commissioner  for  Human  Rights has  explicitly  stated  that  the  Declaration ’s protections  extend  
to  the  “receipt  of funds  from  abroad.”
42 In  placing  restrictions  on  the  flow  of  foreign  funding to  
human  rights  defenders,  a  number  of  the  provisions  discussed  above  would  appear to  be  
inconsistent  with  the  Declaration . 
 
• In some  cases, a  government  may  have entered  into  bilateral  investment  treaties  (BIT)  that  
protect  investments,  broadly  defined,  in  not ‐for ‐profit  organizations  among  other  legal  entities.   
A  BIT  may  allow  a citizen  of  one  of  the  state  parties  to  seek  arbitration  on  the  grounds  that  a  
foreign  funding  restriction  limited  the  “free  transfer”  of  funds  protected  under an  agreement.   
The  BIT  between  Jordan  (whose  Law  on Societies  is  discussed  above) and  the  United  States,  for  
example,  contains  such  a  provision.   Other countries  have  entered  into  “Friendship  Treaties”  
with  similar  protections;  Ethiopia  and  the  United  States  have  such  a  treaty.
43 
 
• National  constitutions  may  include  protections  that  that  are  inconsistent  with  foreign  funding  
restrictions.  In  Peru,  for example,  the  Constitutional  Tribunal  overturned  several  provisions  of  a  
2006  law  that increased  the  role  of a  government  agency  in  supervising  NGO  activities  financed  
with  international  support.  
 
These  and  other  protections  may  provide  the  legal  basis for  a  number  of  actions  that  NGOs,  individuals,  
donors,  or  other  governments  can take  to  address  proposed  or  actual  foreign  funding  restrictions.   
  •  Advocacy  by  NGOs  and  their  allies  may  persuade  government  officials  or  legislatures  to  
eliminate  or ameliorate  foreign  funding  restrictions.  As  discussed  above, in  Iraq,  the  Speaker  of  
the  Parliament  specifically responded  to  NGOs’  input  by  agreeing  to  consider  revisions  to  a  
provision  requiring Ministry approval  for  foreign  and  domestic  funding  for  NGOs.   Kyrgyz  NGOs  
succeeded  in  defeating  a  draft  NGO  law  with  restrictive  foreign  financing  provisions  by  mounting  
an  effective  advocacy  campaign.
44   
 
• Diplomatic  efforts  can  be  critical  to  communicating  concerns  at  the  higher  echelons  of  
government.  Leaders  of  other  nations  and  international  organizations  can  initiate  discussions  
with  a  government  to  dissuade  it  from  introducing  restrictive measures,  providing  the 
government  with  sufficient  space  to  change  course  publicly.    
 

8 
•
Alternative  Funding  Mechanisms.  Many  of  the  restrictions  on  foreign  funding  focus  on  
registered  NGOs.   Donors  may  still have  the  possibility  to  fund  individuals  or  “for ‐profit”  
organizations  with  a  public  benefit,  or  to  provide  volunteers.    
  • Domestic  litigation  offers  a  potentially  powerful  tool  to challenge  rights violations,  to  expose  
the  repressive  nature  of  the  governing  system,  and/or to generate  public attention  and 
awareness.   In addition,  it  may  be necessary  for  parties  considering  litigation  before  an  
international  tribunal  to  exhaust  domestic  remedies.    
 
• National  and  International  Human  Rights  Mechanisms   
 
o National ‐ Many  countries  have  established  a governmental  entity  with  responsibility  to  
monitor,  if  not  enforce,  human  rights  law.  These  entities  include  ombudsman  offices, 
human  rights  commissions,  truth  commissions,  and  judicial  regulatory  bodies. The range  
of  powers  varies  widely  among  these  entities;  regardless,  these  entities  provide  an  
important  tool  for human  rights  NGOs  and  lawyers.  
 
o International  ‐ The right  to  freedom  of  association  is  protected  by  numerous  
international  covenants  and  treaties.  Multiple  international  human  rights  mechanisms,  
some  with global  reach  (UN  commissions)  and  some  with  regional  jurisdiction  have  been  
created  to  ensure  compliance  with  these  international  instruments.  Each  offers  a 
potentially  significant  complementary  tool  for  the  work  of  NGOs  and  lawyers  at  the  
national  level. Even  where  the  mechanisms  cannot  issue  legally  binding  decisions  that  
force  states  to  comply,  the  political  and  moral  force  of  the  decisions  has  proved  
significant  in  influencing  state  behavior.   For example,  The  Human  Rights  Committee  
was  set  up  under  the  International  Covenant on  Civil  and Political  Rights (ICCPR)  to 
ensure  that  state  parties  respect  human  rights  as  defined  in the  ICCPR.    The Committee 
is  authorized  to  accept  individual  complaints  and  to  investigate  alleged  violations  of  the  
human  rights  set  out  in  the  ICCPR  brought  by victims  of  violations  or their  
representatives.  Where  the  Committee  believes  a  violation  has occurred  (or  is  about  to  
occur),  it  can  take  action,  which  could  include  (1)  requesting  interim  measures  by  the  
state,  (2)  declaring  that the state  has  violated  the  ICCPR,  or  (3)  calling  upon  the  state  to  
end  the violation  of the  ICCPR.  
Conclusion  
The financial  crisis  presents  challenges  to  philanthropic  resources  NGOs rely  on  to  deliver  critical  
services;  legal  barriers  to  these  resources  exacerbate  the  situation.   If the  global  community  is  to  achieve  
critical  development  goals,  cooperation  between stakeholders  will  be  necessary.   Lowering  barriers to  
global  philanthropy  will  help  to  support  partnerships  that  will  work  towards  meeting  these development  
goals.  
 
We  invite  you  to  submit  comments  and  reports  of  emerging  issues  in  your  country  by visiting  
https://www.icnl.org/globaltrends/
.   
                                                           
  1 Joint  Ministerial  Committee  of the  Boards  Of  Governors  of  the  Bank  and  the  Fund  on  the  Transfer  of  Real  
Resources  to  Developing  Countries,  Development  Committee  Communiqué  (April  26,  2009),  available  online  at:  
https://siteresources.worldbank.o rg/DEVCOMMINT/NewsAndEvents/22157091/FinalCommunique(E)042609.pdf.
  2 The  eight  Millennium  Development  Goals  have been  adopted  by  the  international  community  as  a  framework  for  
the  development  activities  of  over  190  countries  in  ten  regions;  they  have  been  articulated  into  over 20  targets  
and  over  60  indicators.  
3 Veronica  Uy,  “Ban to  rich  nations:  Keep  your  promises”  INQUIRER.net  (29  October  2008)  
https://globalnation.inquirer.net /news/breakingnews/view/20081029 ‐169127/Ban ‐to ‐rich ‐nations‐ Keep‐your‐
promises
.   4 High‐ level Event  on  the  Millennium  Development  Goals,  United  Nations  Headquarters,  New  York,  (25  September  
2008),  https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2008high level/pdf/newsroom/Goal%208%20FINAL.pdf. 
   5 Id.  

9 
                                                                                                                                                                                               
  6 
Secretary  of  State,  Hillary  Rodham  Clinton,  Remarks  at  the  Global  Philanthropy  Forum  Conference ,  (22  April  
2009),  https://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/04/122066.htm . 
7 Id.  8 See  generally  International  Center  for  Not ‐for ‐Profit  Law  and  World  Movement  for  Democracy  Secretariat at  the  
National  Endowment  for Democracy,  Defending  Civil Society:  A Report  of  the  World  Movement  for Democracy  
(2008),  pp.  21 ‐22.  
9 See  D.  Rutzen  and  C.  Shea,  “The  Associational  Counterrevolution,”  Alliance , Vol.  11  No.  3  (Sept.  2006),  p.  27.   10  For  more  information  about  barriers  to  resources  not  examined  in  this  report  see  generally  Defending  Civil 
Society:  A Report  of  the  World  Movement  for  Democracy  (2008),  pp.  18 ‐20.  
11 Law  on  Non ‐Governmental  Organizations  (2009),  Article  17.    See  Iraqi  Parliament  website  (Arabic only) 
https://www.parliament.iq/Iraqi_Council_of_Representatives.php?name=art icles_ajsdyawqwqdjasdba46s7a98das6
dasda7das4da6sd8asdsawewqeqw465e4qweq4wq6e4qw8eqwe4qw6eqwe4s adkj&file=showdetails&sid=2539.  
12 Id.   13 2001  Law  on  Associations  and  Foundations  (Revised  Article  23,  Proposed  Article  30).    14 2008  Law  on  Societies,  (Article  17(b)  (1)). 152008  Receipt  and Giving  of  Social  Organization  Aids  From  and  To  Foreign  Parties  (Article 6(2)(e)).      16 Id.  at  (Article  40(1));  see  also  John  Aglionby,  “Indonesian  Funding  Rule  “Draconian,”  Financial  Express,  (20 
December  2008), https://www.thefinancialexpress ‐bd.com/2008/12/20/53598.html . 
  17 Council  on Foundations,  “USIG  Country  Report:  Indonesia,”   https://www.usig.org/cou ntryinfo/indonesia.asp.    18  In  1982  the  law  was  amended  to  broaden  the scope  of  the  definition  of  “foreign  contributions”  to  include  all  
contributions  to  NGOs  from  abroad.
  19 World  Bank:  Poverty  Reduction  and  Economic  Management  Sector  Unit  South  Asia  Region,   
  The  Economics  and  Governance  of  Non  Governmental  Organizations  (NGOs)  in  Bangladesh  (August  2005)  p.55, 
https://www.lcgbangladesh.org/NGOs/r eports/NGO_Report_clientversion.pdf. 
  20Finance  minister  A.M.A. Muhith  quoted  in,  “NGOs  with  foreign  funding  fuelling  militancy  in  Bangladesh,”  The  
Gaea  News  (19  March  2009),  https://blog.taragana.com/n/ngos ‐with ‐foreign ‐funding ‐fuelling ‐militancy ‐in ‐
bangladesh ‐19301/ .  
21Editor,  “EOHR  is  under  the  threat  of dissolution”  Egyptian  Organization  for  Human  Rights,  (29  April  2009),  
https://en.eohr.org/?p=102 .  
22 Id.  23 Cairo  Institute  for Human  Rights  Studies,  Human  Rights  in the  Arab  Region  (Annual  Report  2008)  (The  
Association  of  Human  Rights  Legal  Aid  (AHRLA),  a  similar  organization,  was  dissolved  in  September  2007  for  
alleged  acceptance  of  foreign  funding  without  the  approval  of  the  Administrative  authorities.  On  26  October  2008  
a  judicial  ruling  was  issued  to  halt  the  dissolution  of  the  NGO).
  24  Press  conference  with  Mr.  Dzhunushaliev,  the  Head  of  Analytical  Services  with  the  Presidential  Administration  (6 
May  2009),  (Russian)  https://kg.akipress.org/news:74931 .  
25The  Federal  Law  of  the  Russian  Federation  #7 ‐FZ  On  Non ‐commercial  Organizations  of  January  12,  1996  with  
amendments  as  of  January  10,  2006  (Article  23 1).   26 Proclamation  for  the  Registration  and Regulation  of  Charities  and Societies  2009  (Articles  2,  14(5)).    27 “Ethiopia’s  restrictive NGO  law  ‘designed’  for  2010  elections  ‐ Aid officials,”  Jimma  Times  (23  December  2008),  
https://www.jimmatimes.com/article.cfm?articleID=31638 .  
28  Asamblea  Nacional  anunció agenda  legislativa  de  2009   (10  March  2009),   
https://www.asambleanacional.gob .ve/index.php?option=com_content &task=view&id=21299&Itemid=27. 
  29 Id.   30  “NGOs  warn  of  restrictions  in  pending  Venezuela  law,”  Associated  Press  (7 May 2009),  
https://www.chron.com/disp/story.m pl/ap/latinamerica/6413278.html. 
31 Sunil  Jayasiri, “All  foreign  aid  should  go  through  Govt.:  Minister  Keheliya  Rambukwella ”  (9  March  2009),  
https://www.lankamission.or g/content/view/1723/9/;  see  also  “ Sri  Lanka  government  expects  transparency  from  
NGOs”  ColomboPage  (6  March  2009)  https://www.colombopage.com/archive_09/March6160421RA.html ; although  
the  Sri  Lankan  government  has  not  taken  any  legislative  action  as  of  this  writing,  government  spokespeople  have  
been  promising  imminent  action.   See  section  5  infra . 
32  Sandun  A.  Jayasekera,  “Ministry  accuses  NGOs  of  fraud”  Daily  Mirror  (27  March  2009),  
https://www.dailymirror.lk/DM_BLOG/Sections/frmNewsDetailView.aspx?ARTID=44613.  
  33 US  –  Mexico  Income  Tax  Convention,   https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs ‐trty/mexico.pdf . 34  Feizal  Samath,  “Clampdown  on  International  NGOS” Inter  Press  Service  News  Agency  (August  2008),  
https://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43509 .  
35 Id.  36 Rob  Crilly,  “Darfur  refugees  face  disaster  as  Sudan  expels  NGOs in  al ‐Salaam  Camp,  North  Darfur,  Bashir  drives  
out  13  agencies  in  anger  at  his  arrest  warrant”  Irish  Times.Com  (6  March  2009),  
https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ world/2009/0306/1224242373098.html. 
  37  United  Nations  Office  for  the  Coordination  of  Humanitarian  Affairs  ‐ Integrated  Regional  Information  Networks  
(IRIN),  “Sudan:  NGO  expulsion  to  hit  Darfur’s  displaced”  ReliefWeb  (9  March  2009), 
https://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/JBRN ‐7PYDRU?OpenDocument . 
  38  Reuters,  “Sudan  says  to  never  reverse  decision  to  expel  NGOs”  AlertNet  (20  March  2009),  
https://www.alertnet.org/the news/newsdesk/N20521830.htm . 
  39  “ZIMBABWE:  NGOs  withering  under  foreign  currency  shortages”  PlusNews  (24  April 2008),  
https://www.plusnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=77902 . 
  40 Id.  

10 
                                                                                                                                                                                               
  41 
Declaration  on  the  Right  and  Responsibility  of  Individuals,  Groups,  and  Organs  of Society  to Promote  and  Protect  
Universally  Recognized  Human  Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms  (Declaration  on  Human  Rights  Defenders) , 
United  Nations  General  Assembly  Resolution  53/144  (9  December  1998),  Article  13.  
  42 See  Commentary  to  the  Declaration  on  Human  Rights  Defenders ,  available  online  at 
https://www.ohchr.org/english/issu es/defenders/declaration.htm.   
43  For  more  detail,  see  Luke  Eric  Peterson  and  Nick  Gallus,  “International  Investment  Treaty  Protection  of  Not‐ for‐
Profit  Organizations,”  The  International  Journal  of  Not ‐for ‐Profit  Law  (Vol.  10, Iss.  1,  December  2007),  
https://www.ijnl.org . 
44 See  Section  I.  3 supra.