When information in the interest of national security
Whether it’s arresting journalists under bogus ‘coup charges’, prosecuting them under vague anti-terrorism laws or preventing publication on sensitive subjects, States regularly censor speech on the grounds that it threatens ‘national security’. This brief sets out the limitations of restrictions on freedom of expression on the basis of national security, drawing in particular from the Johannesburg
Principles1https://www.article19.org/resources/johannesburg-principles-national-security-freedom-expression-access-information/ on national security, freedom of expression and access to
information. The Principles were adopted by a group of international legal experts in 1995, facilitated by ARTICLE 19 and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at the University of Witswatersrand. Based on existing international legal standards, they set out what restrictions on freedom of expression and information are allowed under international human rights standards on the basis of national security. The right to freedom
of expression, opinion and information means the right to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, through any media, regardless of frontiers. A threat to national security includes the use or threat of force against the country’s very existence or its territorial integrity. The threat can be external or internal. Restricting expression on the basis of national securityThe right to free expression is a fundamental right protected by various international and regional instruments on human rights, including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (European Convention). It must not be restricted on a discriminatory basis, but it can be restricted under certain strict circumstances to protect specific interests, including national security. The state is responsible for showing that the restriction meets these requirements, known as the three-part test.
A clear example of a failure to meet this test from Turkey was the life sentence meted out to the Altan brothers and others. This case fails at every stage of the test because:
Access to information and national securityThe right to access information held by public authorities is integral to freedom of expression. States don’t just have to prevent restrictions – they have to adopt measures to enable the right to information. States however often restrict access to information on the basis of national security. This must only be allowed according to the three part test, and:
Expression which cannot be considered a threat to national securityThere are a range of specific types of expression which states can never restrict on the basis of national security. Crucially, ‘national security’ laws should not be used to restrict expression, if it’s in the public interest to be exposed to that expression. Types of expression which cannot be restricted on the basis of national security include:
Prior censorship can also never be used to restrict expression on the basis of national security, except during a national emergency. Restrictions on ‘incitement to terrorism’Many restrictions on national security, including in Turkey, rely on vaguely defined ‘terrorism’ provisions, including incitement to terrorism. For laws relating to incitement to terrorism to be compatible with international human rights law, they must meet the following criteria:
Restrictions on journalists and civil societyNational security can never be used as a justification for compelling a journalist to reveal their source. It also can’t be used to justify preventing access for journalists, intergovernmental bodies or civil society to an area where there’s grounds to believe human rights violations are being or have been committed, nor to an area of violence or armed conflict (unless their presence poses a clear risk to the safety of others in this situation). Punishment for expressionGovernments must not punish the person responsible for the expression (including through criminal law) if the information does not actually harm/isn’t likely to harm national security, or if the public interest in knowing the information outweighs the harm, including when the information was learned through government service. Anyone subject to charges for expression on national security grounds must:
This policy summary was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of ARTICLE 19 and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union. What is the interest of national security?According to provision 6 of the National Security Strategy to 2020, national security is "the situation in which the individual, the society and the state enjoy protection from foreign and domestic threats to the degree that ensures constitutional rights and freedoms, decent quality of life for citizens, as well as ...
What is considered national security information?(c) "National security information" means information that has been determined pursuant to this Order or any predecessor order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and that is so designated.
What is the main purpose of the national security?As stated, the goal of the national security strategy is to ensure the protection of our nation's fundamental and enduring needs: protect the lives and safety of Americans; maintain the sovereignty of the United States, with its values, institutions and territory intact; and provide for the prosperity of the nation and ...
Who introduced national security?National Security Act (India). |