The significance of the Joint Declarations on freedom of expression
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0924051919844388 |
| Author | Sejal Parmar |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The significance
of the Joint Declarations
on freedom of expression
Sejal Parmar
Department of Legal Studies and Centre for Media, Data and Society, School of Public Policy, Central European University,
Budapest, Hungary
Abstract
This article examines the ‘Joint Declarations on freedom of expression’ from a critical perspective.
Since 1999, these Joint Declarations have been adopted annually by the four intergovernmental
mechanisms on freedom of expression with the assistance of two non-governmental organisations.
This article identifies the factors which contribute to the Joint Declarations’ value, with a specific
focus on the collaborative process leading up to their adoption, their progressive content and their
demonstrated influence upon courts and other actors. It also acknowledges the limitations of the
texts, including their non-binding nature as soft law, their limited impact and lack of visibility.
Notwithstanding these issues, this article contends that the Joint Declarations constitute a distinct
and potentially influential body of international soft law on freedom of expression, one whose
relevance to policy debates deserves broader recognition.
Keywords
Freedom of expression , Joint Declarations on fr eedom of expression, in ternational soft law,
standard-setting, international human rights bodies, special rapporteurs
Introduction
This article examines the ‘Joint Declarations on freedom of expression’ (‘Joint Declarations’) from
a critical perspective. These texts h ave been adopted annually by the four inter governmental
mechanisms on freedom of expression (‘international mechanisms’ or ‘mandate-holders’) –
namely the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (‘OSCE’) Represen tative on Freedom of the Media, the
Organization of American States (‘OAS’) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the
Corresponding author:
Sejal Parmar, Department of Legal Studies and Centre for Media, Data and Society, School of Public Policy, Central Eur-
opean University, Budapest, N´
ador u. 9, 1051 Hungary.
E-mail: ParmarS@ceu.edu
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
2019, Vol. 37(2) 178–195
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0924051919844388
journals.sagepub.com/home/nqh
NQHR
NQHR
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ (‘ACnHPR’) Special Rapporteur on Free-
dom of Expression and Access to Information.
1
This has been done since 1999 with the support of
two non-governmental organisations (‘NGOs’), ARTICLE 19 and the Centre for Law and Democ-
racy (‘CLD’).
2
The Joint Declarations have addressed a diversity of contemporary issues, which
cut across all regions and demand global attention, such as restrictions on Internet freedom,
policies to counter terrorism and violent extremism, and so-called ‘fake news’ and disinformation.
3
While they have been increasingly viewed as a compelling, and even as a core, set of international
soft law standards on freedom of expression by advocates and activists in the field,
4
the Joint
Declarations have hitherto garnered little scholarly attention.
5
In addressing this gap of academic attention, this article analyses the significance of the Joint
Declarations by illustrating their importance and strengths as sources of soft law on freedom of
expression, as well as their limitations and challen ges. Part II sets out the key factors which
contribute to the value of the Joint Declarations, namely the process leading to their development,
their substantive content and evidence of their influence upon judicial decisions and policy-
making. Part III highlights the texts’ shortfalls and problems, including their non-binding charac-
ter, their limited impact and lack of visib ility. This article argues that, notwiths tanding these
challenges, the Joint Declarations constitute a distinct and influential body of international soft
law on freedom of expression, one whose relevance to policy debates deserves further recognition.
Moreover, the texts arguably represent an innovative model of collaboration between
1. For a compilation of the Joint Declarations on freedom of expression, see accessed 24
January 2019.
2. ibid. While the first Joint Declaration of 1999 did not reference ARTICLE 19 at all, the preambles of the Joint
Declarations of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008 indicated they were adopted ‘under the auspices’ of ARTICLE 19, and
those of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 indicated they were
adopted ‘with the assistance’ of ARTICLE 19 and, since 2010, CLD also.
3. See Joint Declarations of 2001, 2005, 2011, 2016, 2017 (n 1).
4. See Toby Mendel, ‘The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression: progressive development of
international standards relating to freedom of expression’ in Tarlach McGonagle and Yvonne Donders (eds), The United
Nations and Freedom of Expression and Information (CUP 2015) 265.
5. The only focussed considerations of the Joint Declarations have been by one practitioner, Toby Mendel, former Legal
Director of ARTICLE 19 and Executive Director of CLD. See Mendel (n 4) and Toby Mendel, ‘History of the Joint
Declarations’ in OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Joint Declarations of intergovernmental bodies to
protect free media and expression (OSCE 2013) 9. For academic articles referencing the Joint Declarations, often in
footnotes, see: Herdis Thorgeisdottir, ‘Self-Censorship among Journalists: A (Moral) Wrong or a Violation of ECHR
Law’ (2004) European Human Rights Law Review 383, 388; Michael O’Flaherty, ‘Freedom of Expression: Article 19 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No 34’
(2012) 12 Human Rights Law Review 627, fn 38; Michael Karanicolas, ‘Understanding the Internet as a Human Right’
(2012) 10 Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 263, 269; Maeve McDonagh, ‘The Right to Information in
International Human Rights Law’ (2013) Human Rights Law Review 25, 30; Fernando Mendez Powell, ‘Seeking
Equality in Broadcasting: the Case for Third Sector Broadcasting’ (2014) 21 International Journal on Minority and
Group Rights178, fn 23; Patrick Ford, ‘Freedom of Expression Through Technological Networks: Accessing the Internet
as a Fundamental Human Right’ (2014) 21 Wisconsin Law Journal 142, 163 – 164; Stephen Tully, ‘A Human Right to
Access the Internet? Problems and Prospects’ (2014) Human Rights Law Review 175, 186; Lisl Brunner, ‘The Liability
of an Online Intermediary for Third Party Content: The Watchdog Becomes the Monitor: Intermediary Liability After
Delfi v Estonia’ (2016) Human Rights Law Review 163, fns 50, 59; Amy Shepherd, ‘Free Speech and the Rule of Law:
Evaluating the Compliance of Legislation Restricting Extremist Expressions with Article 19 ICCPR’ (2017) 33(85)
Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 62, fns 57, 58, 139; Tarlach McGonagle, ‘‘‘FakeNews’’: False Fears
or Real Concerns’ (2017) 35(4) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 203, 207.
Parmar 179
To continue reading
Request your trial