Overview: A New Lens on the Right to Peaceful Assembly
The Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center and the Centre for Law and Democracy have released a joint report that maps critical gaps in how courts interpret and enforce the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. By analyzing international and regional jurisprudence, the study aims to guide strategic litigation that strengthens protections for peaceful demonstrators and clarifies state obligations. The report comes at a time when assemblies—whether for labor, protest, or civic engagement—are central to public life and democratic accountability.
What the Report Identifies as Gaps
The authors highlight several recurring deficiencies in current jurisprudence across major regional and international bodies. First, there is often a lack of consistent standards for what constitutes a lawful restriction on peaceful assembly. Jurists grapple with balancing public order and freedom of expression, frequently resulting in vague tests that fail to predictably constrain government overreach.
Second, the report notes uneven consideration of gender, minority, and vulnerable groups within assembly cases. Protections are not uniformly extended to participants from marginalized communities, which can undermine the universality of the right.
Third, there is insufficient articulation of state duties in the context of virtual or hybrid assemblies. As digital protests become more common, jurisprudence struggles to address online mobilization, verification of online harms, and the preservation of safe, inclusive public spaces both online and offline.
Fourth, the evidence standards in many judgments are limited. Courts often rely on narrow legal reasoning that does not adequately address systematic patterns of rights violations, such as excessive force, arbitrary arrests, or punitive restrictions that chill participation in public life.
Fifth, there is a need for clearer interpretations of proportionality and necessity when governments justify restrictions. Clear, repeatable guidelines could reduce disputes and empower advocates to challenge overbroad bans or poorly tailored responses to demonstrations.
Opportunities for Strategic Litigation
Despite these gaps, the report outlines concrete opportunities to advance the right to freedom of peaceful assembly through targeted litigation strategies. These include:
- Harmonizing standards across regions: Use regional human rights courts to develop consistent tests for legitimate restrictions and to articulate core elements of the right that should be protected universally.
- Focusing on vulnerable groups: Prioritize cases that illuminate how restrictions disproportionately affect women, ethnic minorities, or other marginalized communities to ensure inclusive interpretation of the right.
- Addressing digital protests: Advocate for jurisprudence that protects peaceful online expression while addressing legitimate safety concerns, ensuring digital assemblies receive equivalent protections to physical gatherings.
- Strengthening evidence requirements: Encourage courts to demand robust documentation of rights violations, patterns of enforcement, and state rationale for restrictions to improve accountability.
- Proportionality and necessity: Push for precise, rules-based analyses that limit government discretion and provide predictable outcomes for future cases.
Strategic litigation should also seek to establish testable benchmarks and remedies—such as declarations of violation, structural remedies to reform policing practices, or systemic audits of restrictions—to create lasting changes beyond individual cases.
What This Means for Civil Society and States
For civil society, the report offers a practical roadmap for case selection, coalition-building, and evidence-gathering that can elevate the standard of protection for peaceful assembly. For states, it presents a menu of commitments—clearer restrictions grounded in necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination—designed to enhance public safety without stifling civic participation.
Ultimately, advancing the right to freedom of peaceful assembly requires a shared agenda among regional bodies, international courts, and national systems. The joint report invites legislators, judges, and advocates to seize the moment to modernize jurisprudence in line with contemporary forms of assembly and expression.
Conclusion
By identifying gaps and proposing targeted litigation strategies, the report from the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center and the Centre for Law and Democracy offers a constructive pathway to bolster the right to freedom of peaceful assembly across international and regional levels. Strengthened jurisprudence will empower individuals and communities to gather, express, and be heard within the bounds of the law.
