Background Government-mandated disruptions of internet access are becoming increasingly frequent around the world.®° Under the guise of a variety of reasons, most prominently including the safeguarding of public order and national security interests, restricting internet access has typically been used as a tool to quell dissent and organisation during key political moments such as protests, civil strife, anniversaries of key historical events or elections. This has been the recourse of governments across political systems’—democratically elected governments, authoritarian regimes and countries in transition have all been documented as shutting the internet down, even for months at a stretch. Concerted international attention towards the severe harms caused by internet shutdowns is also emerging. The 2017 report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council looks at illegal internet communication shutdowns.® The report argues that states and governments are increasingly relying on telecommunications companies, internet service providers and other actors to cut access to the internet and monitor expression online. Given this environment, the report charts out a series of measures that the digital access industry can undertake to identify, prevent and mitigate risks to freedom of expression caused due to internet shutdowns. The report references Human Rights Council resolution 32/13 which unequivocally condemned measures that sought to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or the dissemination of information online.? The motivations of state actors to impose internet shutdowns also often thrives in legal vacuums. As a result of legislative forbearance to address these, legal barriers challenging internet shutdowns have also increased recently, albeit with mixed results.’° Litigation has transcended national and continental borders—with cases being heard in India, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia and Cameroon." Many of these cases have been unsuccessful in restoring internet access, although there have been recent victories. Regardless of the outcome of these litigation processes, the discourse galvanised by these processes have been crucial in terms of bringing this issue to light on a global scale. Vibrant local and transnational advocacy groups working towards resisting internet shutdowns too have fostered and played a crucial role in achieving discursive and material gains? when penalties or restrictions evincing the harshness of the law are tempered or better clarified by court justices. About this report This report and the associated workbook seeks to contribute to the discourse in three ways. First, we hope to open an extensible documentation and overview of practices, experiences, and resources on the legitimisation of, and resistance to, state-backed internet shutdowns across the world. Second, we seek to enable and advance a collective understanding of emerging legal and jurisprudential frameworks being used to legitimise and resist internet shutdowns. Free and open access to such data would help human rights lawyers and civil society advocates to locate relevant jurisprudence and accordingly tailor strategies. 6 Access Now. (2020). Targeted, Cut Off, and Left in the Dark: The #KeepItOn Report on Internet Shutdowns in 2019. Access Now. https: WWW.aCCESSNOW.OF: cms /assets /uploads /2020 /02 /KeepItOn-2019-report-1. pdf 7 Ibid. 8 United Nations. (2017). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression to A/HRC/35 /22 the United Nations Human Rights Council. United Nations. https: www.undocs.or 9 Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 1 July 2016 - 32/13. The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet 10 Access Now. (2019). Judges raise the gavel to #KeepItOn around the world. Access Now. https: vel-to-keepiton-around-the-worl 11 Ibid. www.accessnow.org /judges-raise-the- 12 Keck, M., & Sikkink, K.(2019). Transnational advocacy network in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal 65://onlinelibrary.wil i £/10.1111 /issi.121