Civil societies under pressure – an alarming global trend

When I read about the lawsuit against the Barents Observer from the Russian oligarch V. Orlov, the first thing that struck me was the relevance for a work I have in progress, a research article about how civil society actors can contribute to protect populations from atrocity crimes. It is about exploring potential, but also to enlighten the challenges these actors continuously meet, in a world where shrinking civic space seems to have become a global trend. It is not an article focusing particularly on Arctic issues. However, this topic represents challenges at all geographical levels, from small local communities up to the global arena. Neither are the challenges limited to preventing the worst kinds of human rights violations categorized as atrocities, but equally relevant for efforts to address human rights abuses in general. Although escalation to war crimes and crimes against humanity are exceptions, less serious human rights violations can be early warning signals. Sometimes these exceptions materialize. No society is vaccinated against this danger, and it is difficult to see more important guards than vibrant civil societies. 

Mr. Orlov’s lawsuit against the Barents Observer tells us about a person who has no respect for the roles civil actors play in democratic societies. With many years lived in Norway, including a period as Norwegian citizen, it would be very strange if the oligarch does not understand these roles. More probably he dislikes independent journalists who question his activities. He chooses to use his economic power against the newspaper and its journalists, probably calculating that this is an easier target compared to for instance the EU Council. He does this from his base in Murmansk, in a country where the few remaining signs of civil society are fast disappearing. Some days ago, the Novaya Gazeta, the last important free newspaper in Russia, was forced to close. Former editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov, winner of the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize, announced the closure with the words: “They killed us after more than 30 years”. With irony he referred to Article 29 in the Russian Constitution saying that censorship is prohibited. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has of course condemned the forced closure. 

Shrinking civic space has many unpleasant consequences. For authoritarian regimes like the Russian one it becomes easier to spread propaganda, when alternative voices are silenced. This is clearly demonstrated in the apparent success the Russian regime has with spreading their narrative about the war against Ukraine to the domestic population. Russian citizens, or at least certain segments of them, may still have access to some sources outside governmental control, like social media. But these media are double-edged swords, also used by actors dedicated to promoting official narratives. Substantial research has shown that destructive and false messages are easier to spread through social media compared to those with true and more reflected content. But Norway, Britain and the EU are not Russia. Let us therefore hope that the oligarch and his compatriots will soon learn a lesson they will remember when they fail with their dirty attempt, as the editors of the Barents Observer rightly called it. 

There is a striking contrast to the situation a couple of decades ago, when the Barents’ regional cooperation still existed. Although not directly mentioned in the 1993 Kirkenes-declaration which laid the foundation for The Barents-Euro-Arctic-Region, and despite a quite small amount of money specifically dedicated to democracy-building, it was an underlying ambition with this transnational cooperation to stimulate and develop civil society in Russia and in a broader sense contribute to build democracy locally. The drivers were largely civil actors, from individuals to a variety of non-governmental organizations. Just to mention some few examples, help programs were designed to combat poverty and to empower civil actors, bridges across borders were built between civil organizations representing indigenous people in the region, there were exchange programs for journalists, and help was offered to establish youth organizations in Russia and advise them on how to develop fruitful relations to their local governments. But all of this is history now. In the aftermath one may conclude that the whole idea was naive, based on some sort of utopian optimism.

My research article is partly based on the principle called R2P (Responsibility to protect), the national and international responsibility to protect populations from atrocity crimes adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2005. Since 2009 the UN Secretary Generals have delivered annual R2P-reports to the General Assembly and the Security Council where they frequently emphasize the protection roles of civil actors. These actors are present on the ground in conflicted areas; they know local history and culture; and they are normally the best equipped to understand early warning signals and to suggest appropriate reactions. But they can only realize their potential under certain prerequisites. A vibrant civil society is a society where civil actors are trusted, respected, and empowered. A free press where journalists can work without risking persecution and harassment, is of utter importance. Unfortunately, these conditions are too often not present, particularly where they are most needed. Russia is not a unique case. In the later R2P-reports the UN leaders warn against an alarming global trend pointing in the wrong direction. One among several examples is Peru where attacks on journalists who challenge the authorities have become an almost daily affair. A law adopted by the Peruvian parliament in 2025 reduced severely the space of action for journalists and local human rights organizations, with vague formulations referring to security, giving authorities the tool they needed to silence voices they dislike.

Civil actors can document war crimes. An illustrative example is the ongoing work to document Russian war crimes in liberated Ukrainian villages, The Reckoning Project: Ukraine Testifies. The project is based on civilian infrastructure, organized by a coalition of human rights organizations, and driven by Ukrainian as well as international journalists, analysts, and lawyers. They talk to those directly affected, with the ambition to enforce justice and to ensure that crimes are not forgotten when news agencies turn their attention elsewhere. The project is well described by journalist and researcher Svitlana Oslavska in her 2025 book entitled “On their Own Skin”. Similar projects where civil actors document atrocity crimes and human rights abuses are also operating elsewhere, for instance in certain regions of Myanmar where outside investigators have no or limited access. But all such projects come with responsibilities for the actors involved, meeting evidentiary standards, protecting witnesses, and preserving data securely over time.

The lawsuit against the Barents Observer is a concrete case, but it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is embedded in a context where civil societies experience an increasing multitude of challenges. Preventing the oligarch from succeeding is therefore not just about preventing the newspaper from defeat. It is also about to preserving belief in success among all people who strive every day for the realization of democratic rule with broad civil engagement.