While international law establishes foundational principles to combat digital authoritarianism, it is often the local legal frameworks that shape the realities for individuals living under repressive regimes. Authoritarian governments have become adept at exploiting domestic laws to justify digital surveillance, censorship, and control. However, these same systems hold untapped potential as tools for resistance, enabling activists, lawyers, and civil society to push back.
The Role of ByeLaws in Enabling Digital Repression
In many countries, authoritarian regimes have weaponized domestic laws to entrench digital control and silence dissent. Cybercrime laws are frequently enacted with vague and overly broad language, criminalising actions like “spreading false news” or “inciting unrest.” As a consequence, these laws enable governments to target journalists, activists, and even citizens for online activity deemed critical of the regime.
Surveillance laws, in particular, make matters worse by giving authorities unrestricted authority to monitor digital communications. Many regimes mandate tech companies to create backdoor access to user data, facilitating mass surveillance without judicial oversight. Additionally, emergency powers are often invoked to bypass even these minimal safeguards, leading to widespread internet shutdowns and censorship under the guise of maintaining public order. There have been several documented instances during times of political unrest, governments have frequently imposed internet blackouts, cutting off communication channels and stifling the spread of dissenting voices.
An example of this is in the Gulf region, where governments have repeatedly restricted internet access during periods of political unrest. For instance, in Bahrain, authorities imposed internet blackouts in 2016 in the town of Duraz, following protests against the revocation of a prominent Shia cleric’s citizenship. Reports show that this black out severely limited the ability of activists and journalists to communicate and report on human rights violations. Similarly, during the 2011–2012 protests in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, there were reports of internet disruptions aimed at suppressing dissent. The government also imposed a ban on all protests and marches, warning that security forces would prevent any attempts to disrupt public order. These measures showcase the extent to which local laws can be manipulated to suppress freedoms in the digital age.
Resistance Through Local Legal Mechanisms
Despite their misuse, local legal systems also provide avenues for resistance against digital repression. Courts in some countries have emerged as champions of digital rights, with judicial rulings striking down unconstitutional internet shutdowns and privacy violations. These decisions not only protect individuals but also set critical precedents for safeguarding freedoms in the digital realm.
Data protection laws inspired by international frameworks, such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), have also been adopted by some nations and a similar model could be adopted in the Gulf regions in order to protect citizens and their private data. These regulations have the ability to act as a shield against government overreach by limiting unauthorized access to personal information and holding offenders accountable. Furthermore, strategic litigation is another tool increasingly employed by human rights organizations to challenge repressive laws. By bringing cases to court, these groups force governments to publicly justify their actions, shining a light on abuses and galvanizing public support for reforms. A particular development is this discussion occurred in December 2023, when ALQST, a non-governmental organization focusing on human rights in Saudi Arabia, convened a conference to explore collective strategies for seeking accountability for human rights abuses in the region. The conference emphasized the importance of strategic litigation as a tool to challenge oppressive laws and practices. By bringing cases to court, ALQST and similar organizations aim to expose governmental abuses, foster public awareness, and galvanize support for legal and policy reforms
Technology as a Catalyst for Resistance
Technology itself plays a crucial role in enabling resistance against digital authoritarianism. Activists and journalists use digital platforms to document and expose violations, creating a record of abuses that can support legal challenges and advocacy efforts. Furthermore, social media platforms and encrypted messaging apps amplify the voices of those fighting against repression, connecting local movements to global audiences. Thus, growing reliance on technology emphasises the significance of safeguarding these instruments against misuse.
Building a Path Forward
To counter the misuse of local laws, governments and civil society must collaborate to reform and strengthen domestic legal systems. The first steps to strengthening reform is through clarity of repressive laws that must be amended to remove vague provisions that criminalize dissent, and judicial independence must be bolstered to ensure fair adjudication of digital rights cases. Additionally, Oversight mechanisms must also be established to monitor and limit surveillance powers, ensuring that these tools are not abused. Public participation is equally critical; by involving civil society in the legislative process, governments can create laws that reflect democratic values and protect fundamental freedoms. Such collaboration fosters transparency and accountability, ensuring that local legal frameworks become instruments of empowerment rather than repression.
To this end, local laws, though often exploited to entrench digital authoritarianism, remain a vital battleground for defending human rights. By leveraging these systems and strengthening legal protections, the international community and local actors alike can help ensure a freer, more democratic digital future.