“Business as Usual”? Human Rights NGOs’ Adaptation Strategies to Repressive Legislation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last two decades, governments have increasingly been adopting legislative measures that limit civil society and human rights organizations. While several studies explored the response of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in nondemocratic regimes to such measures, the literature on the response of NGOs in liberal democracies remains scarce. We examine this by analyzing the case of Israel. We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 position holders in 13 human rights NGOs, as well as lengthy ethnographic participant observations in two of these organizations. Our findings show that organizational responses varied significantly, ranging from minor to very significant changes. Furthermore, the direction of these changes was not uniform. While some organizations chose to intensify and radicalize their message, others preferred to depoliticize and appease domestic audiences. We reflect on the possible drivers of such strategic organizational differences and discuss the more general effects of repressive legislation in liberal democracies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it