Protecting Human Rights Defenders at Risk, edited by Alice M. Nah, combines results from the research project “Navigating Risk” into a comprehensive collection of experiences that represent what it means to be a human rights defender. Through the images painted by Nah and her fellow researchers, the reader comes to an understanding that human rights work is not as glorious as it often seems on a superficial level. The case studies that Nah highlights reveal the atrocious conditions that human rights defenders face in the course of work. Various countries analysed in the book, such as, Egypt, Kenya, Indonesia, Columbia, and Mexico represent different levels of progress in the protection of human rights defenders, but all reveal a jarring truth about the treatment and protections afforded to such defenders thus far. While I believe that Nah and her colleagues do an excellent job of representing the unique and difficult lives of human rights defenders, I took issue with her general definition and expectations of what being a human rights defender entails.
Before delving into the case studies and what they contribute to the field of human rights protections, it is important to examine Nah’s initial definition of a human rights defender. Nah defines a human rights defender as “anyone who engage[s] in the promotion and protection of human rights” (Nah, 2020, p. 16). The broadness and inclusiveness of her definition is admirable, however her analysis of human rights defenders based on the expectations of the United Nations (UN) is debatable. The UN declares that human rights defenders must accept all aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Nah finds this problematic and says that a human rights defender can accept some human rights but not all. For example, one could defend refugee rights but still be homophobic. I do not think someone can truly declare themselves a human rights defender if some basic human rights are irrelevant and unacceptable to them? They, as human rights defenders, would be explicitly excluding groups who also deserve access to basic rights. Nah defends her position in saying that “human rights ideas, norms and standards are borne of struggle, debate and discussion” (Nah, 2020, p. 11) and are constantly changing. However, UDHR is one of the most agreed upon documents in the world and should be upheld by all human rights defenders. While it is contested and not agreed upon by everyone, I think it embodies the ultimate idea of basic rights that should be strived for by anyone defending human rights. I do not believe that someone can be a human rights defender and actively reject some human rights, when all are so important and impactful to basic needs of life.
Aside from this, Nah and the contributing researchers, through these case studies, do an exemplary job of investigating the needs and protections afforded to defenders. One of the most important issues highlighted through these case studies are the mental health struggles that human rights defenders face. The psychological effects of human rights work, including, but not limited to, burnout, anxiety, discouragement, and hopelessness, are not prioritised or discussed the way they should be. Nah identifies that defenders who were interviewed “were not accustomed to being interviewed about their personal experiences of insecurity, risk, and wellbeing” (Nah, 2020, p. 17). Defenders constantly feel like they must be brave, strong, resilient, and fearless. They often “prioritise their human rights activism above their own wellbeing” (Nah, 2020, p. 175), which can make conversations about mental health difficult or nonexistent, especially as there is a global stigma surrounding mental health. It is incalculably important that Nah introduces mental health when identifying hurdles that advocates experience and in identifying solutions, protections, and resources for such defenders.
It is also important that different types of risk were identified through each case study. Human rights defenders experience backlash in different ways, dependent on their identity and location. Intersectionality is a strong and vital buzzword of the modern era and this research report does not disappoint in identifying how people are affected differently in their human rights work. LGBTQ+ defenders, women, and often people of different religions were treated and abused in different ways and more frequently targeted. While violence against defenders commonly included threats against them and their families, killings and disappearances, or getting hit with a car, women and LGBTQ+ were more likely to also experience sexual harassment and labels such as promiscuous and immoral. A female defender interviewed in Egypt admitted, “my deepest fear is not being killed, but I fear more sexual assaults” (Nah, 2020, p. 70). Additional women mentioned “the mental burn out of having to address additional threats because of their gender” (Nah, 2020, p. 70). I hope that the truths exposed by this research, in regard to intersectionality-inflicted violence, will allow for more visibility and protections to human rights defenders who are especially vulnerable due to their identity.
Nah’s collection of testimonies and knowledge, as well as her suggestions for additional protections greatly strengthen the image and rhetoric around human rights. Specifically, I am referring to her suggestion to change the vernacular around legislation and other efforts dedicated to protecting advocates. In addition to protecting human rights defenders, Nah suggests that we should also recognise and protect the right to defend human rights. This moves the focus from the defender to the essential rights that need to be protected. It also removes the assumption that only people who explicitly identify as human rights defenders can receive protection, and proceeds to allow anyone who defends human rights to receive that protection. This is important, as the term “human rights defender” is perceived differently, and with different connotations, in different areas of the world.
Overall, Nah paints a vivid picture of the realities faced by human rights defenders every day. In addition to examining the case studies of five countries in different stages of protecting defenders, she also provides immediate changes that can be made in affording defenders more rights and resources. These solutions were particularly helpful, as I have found that many researchers do not provide solutions that can be practically implemented. As per Nah, one of the major changes that needs to take place is stronger trust and more cooperation between the defenders and the state. She states that “[s]tate authorities are the principal duty bearers in protecting defenders” (Nah, 2020, p. 172), however, it is difficult when states are also most commonly the perpetrators of threats and attacks. Nah emphasises patterns of intersectionality and mental health that need to be addressed through these innovative solutions, and mentions that it is vital that states become involved, but also do not interfere with informal support systems and resources.
Hannah is a first year Masters student at American University. She is in the Ethics, Peace, and Human Rights program within the School of International Service. Hannah is planning to concentrate in human rights reporting with a focus on women’s rights. In addition to being a student, she is also a writing tutor, graduate assistant, and an intern with Vital Voices Global Partnership.