Background Guide

Committee History of the Human Rights Council 

The Human Rights Council (HRC) is an intergovernmental body within the United Nations (UN) entrusted with the responsibility of promoting and protecting human rights worldwide. The HRC’s mission is to “promote universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,” while also working to prevent,  address, and mitigate systemic human rights violations wherever they occur.

The UN’s first creation of a global standard for human rights was with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948.  Drafted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), its purpose was to serve as a common standard among Member States for fundamental individual freedoms.  The  UNCHR, a subsidiary of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), was a precursor to the HRC, and was responsible for drafting key resolutions regarding human rights.  Despite its accomplishments, the UNCHR faced  significant criticism for allowing committee membership to Member States with poor human rights records. This loss of credibility ultimately led to its dissolution and the establishment of the HRC in 2006 through General  Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/251. The HRC was established to strengthen the international community’s commitment to eliminating human rights abuses and upholding the principles of universality, impartiality,  objectivity, and non-selectivity, replacing the Commission on Human Rights to restore credibility and effectiveness. 

Since its creation, the HRC has introduced several initiatives to broaden access and participation in its work. One such initiative is the Voluntary Technical Assistance Trust Fund, created in 2012 and enacted by HRC Resolution  19/26. The fund is intended to improve access to human rights-related diplomatic work among Least Developed  Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) by providing travel assistance, fellowship programs, and digital training for diplomats. Through this support, delegations from 10 to 15 LDCs and/or SIDS have been  able to attend each of the past seven HRC sessions.

The headquarters of the HRC is located in Geneva, Switzerland.  In addition to its headquarters, the HRC also has 18 country and standalone offices, as well as the Human Rights New York Office (OHCHR-NY), in cooperation with United Nations headquarters. The HRC is made up of 47 Member States who are elected by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Member States are required to be nominated by other Member States within  their geographical region. Representation is allocated across geographical regions as follows: 13 from Asia; 13 from Africa; eight from Latin America and the Caribbean; seven from Western Europe and other Member States;  and six from Eastern Europe. 

Member States may serve on the Council for six years, but must have at least a three-year resting period before they can be elected on the Council once more. If an elected member of the Council fails to uphold human rights within  its Member State, the Council may suspend its membership based on a two-thirds majority vote of the General Assembly. The current President of the HRC is Jürg Lauber, who was elected by a majority vote in the Council  and is a representative of Switzerland, a Member State within the Council. 

The HRC’s two main functions are the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and Special Procedures.  The Universal  Periodic Review (UPR) is a peer-review process in which every UN Member State is evaluated on its human rights  record every four and a half years. It is a state-led, transparent process based on equal treatment, in which Member  States declare the actions they have taken to improve human rights and fulfill their obligations, drawing from  national reports, UN data, and civil society input. Reviews are conducted by the UPR Working Group, supported  by a randomly selected trio of rapporteur states, and emphasize cooperation, dialogue, and follow-up.

To date, the HRC has completed three cycles of UPR, reviewing every UN Member State each cycle. 

The current and fourth UPR cycle, initiated in 2022 and expected to conclude in 2027, is currently underway, with  the focus of “enhanced implementation of UPR recommendations.” As of the 49th Working Group Session from  April 28, 2025 to May 9, 2025, 125 participating Member States have passed their national report deadlines. For  the fourth cycle, HRC Resolution 51/30 calls for the allocation of more voluntary funds to facilitate the review than in previous cycles, including towards the Voluntary Technical Assistance Trust Fund. To support the fourth cycle, HRC has also published an updated Civil Society Guide. This guide serves to support “[p]ublic engagement of  civil society stakeholders in the UPR” during the fourth cycle through contributing relevant information to a  particular report, submitting a mid-term report, providing oral statements to HRC, observing UPR Working Groups,  and organizing “UPR-focused side events.” 

Special Procedures is the second mechanism established by the HRC to address specific Member State instances and  issues. The mandates of the Special Procedures call on the Council to examine, monitor, advise, and report on  human rights situations worldwide, with thematic mandates addressing global issues and phenomena, and Member  State mandates focusing on specific situations and violations within individual countries. Currently, the Council  addresses 46 thematic and 14 Member State mandates. Furthermore, the Council may respond to individual  complaints, conduct studies, provide technical advice, and engage in promotional activities. 

To date, the HRC has enacted 40 mandated individual investigative missions, which have generally concluded within one to two years.  Of these, seven missions have examined the Palestinian territory or Gaza, with no other  state revisited by the HRC more than twice (i.e., three total mandated inquiries). In the course of this process, the  HRC has conducted field visits to conflict zones and interviewed witnesses of human rights violations. This  process was conducted without access granted by the government of Israel, with the Mission utilizing the Rafah crossing to enter the West Bank. Their work culminated in two public hearings, one in Gaza City and one in  Geneva, prior to the Mission releasing its findings. According to a UN Press Release, such hearings “enable  victims, witnesses and experts from all sides in the conflict to speak directly to the international community.” 

In some cases, HRC-mandated investigations carry implications for international law. For example, the HRC’s  mandated independent international fact-finding mission in Myanmar was cited less than two months after its conclusion in the “Gambia’s Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of  Genocide against Myanmar” before the International Court of Justice, which described the findings as “especially  significant.” In addition to serving justice for the victims of human rights violations, these actions also have a  preventative function; in the words of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, they “put potential  perpetrators on notice that their violations will be subject to ongoing international scrutiny.” 

Of the 40 HRC mandates, 11 are currently active. The longest of these, the Independent International Commission  of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, has been ongoing since 2011 and has produced 57 reports in total. The  latest extension of this mandate, enacted via HRC Resolution 55/22, notes the Commission’s recent findings of  “continued violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including attacks against  civilians and civilian objects, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances and deaths in detention due to ill-treatment  or lack of access to medical care and arbitrary arrests on return to the Syrian Arab Republic.” The most recently  created of the 11 active mandates is the Group of Independent Experts on the Human Rights Situation in Belarus, established in April of 2024 and whose mandate includes “gender and age dimensions and their impact on victims  and survivors.” Of the other nine active mandates, those for Sudan, Ukraine, and the Occupied Palestinian  Territory occur in the context of armed conflict. Others, such as the mandate for the Islamic Republic of Iran,  primarily concern governmental overreach. 

In addition to case-specific investigative work, the HRC has worked to contribute to, refine, and implement  universally applicable frameworks of human rights assessment. For example, the Universal Human Rights Index  (UHRI), established in 2020, is a comprehensive repository of human rights information intended for all human  rights stakeholders. The UHRI is composed of data from the HRC’s Universal Periodic Review and Special  Procedures, in addition to ten total treaty bodies established by the United Nations. In 2019, the HRC provided  human rights-based input on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The UN Sustainable Development  Group, responsible for the 2030 Agenda, already incorporates human rights as one of six guiding pillars. The  Sustainable Development Group adheres to a human-rights based approach (HRBA) defined in the 2003 Common  Understanding on HRBA to Development Cooperation, itself a precursor to much of the HRC’s work. HRC has  built on these frameworks to refine its definitions and standards for a broader assessment of human rights. The most  recent session of the HRC, its 58th, considered the human rights implications of cultural heritage, freedom of  religion, and neurotechnology.

Protecting Human Rights During Large-Scale Protests 

Introduction 

In the past 12 months, more than 70 Member States have experienced more than 100 protests, 35 of which are still  ongoing. The Human Rights Council (HRC) and the United Nations (UN) as a whole have consistently affirmed the  human rights to freedom of association, peaceful demonstration or assembly, and protection from government  retaliation for exercising these freedoms. These rights often come into conflict with states’ attempts to suppress  protest activity, frequently justified by security concerns and instances of violence committed by individual  protestors. These conflicts can be mitigated through greater transparency and the development of constructive  relationships between protest organizations and third parties, including law enforcement.

History 

Protests were central to movements for civil, political, and social rights even before the establishment of the UN. Earliest documentation of individual rights include the Magna Carta (1215), the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791), and  France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789). From these, the principles of liberty, equality, and peaceful assembly emerged as foundations of modern human rights. Since then, there have been significant  advancements in individual rights in response to movements, including in the 19th century, when enslaved people  and their allies participated in abolitionist movements, displaying acts of resistance that directly challenged the  denial of basic human rights. Moving into the 20th century, Mahatma Gandhi's independence movement in India  pioneered large-scale nonviolent civil disobedience, and demonstrated how peaceful mass mobilization could  pressure states while upholding human rights. Similarly, in the 1980s, Poland’s Solidarity movement, led by workers organizing against authoritarian rule, showed how labor-based mass mobilization could secure protections  for freedom of association, collective bargaining, and democratic participation, further shaping international human  rights norms. 

The post-World War II formation of the UN marked a turning point in international engagement with protest  rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948, enshrined the right to freedom of  peaceful assembly and association. This global progression was echoed domestically in many states; for example,  during the United States Civil Rights Movement, particularly during the Freedom Riders campaign in 1961, federal  authorities intervened to protect protesters challenging segregation in interstate travel. Similar advancements  occurred elsewhere, such as in India, where post-independence reform movements relied on mass demonstrations to  push for social justice, and in South Africa, where anti-apartheid protests, notably the 1952 Defiance Campaign,  mobilized broad civil resistance against racial oppression. These parallel developments across regions reinforced a  growing international consensus that states must protect the right to peaceful assembly and ensure that any  restrictions imposed are justified as necessary, proportionate, and consistent with human rights law. 

By the early 21st century, large-scale protests emerged across diverse political contexts, revealing both the power  and the limits of mass mobilization. During the Arab Spring (2010–2012), movements in Tunisia and Egypt successfully forced political transitions, while uprisings in countries like Bahrain and Syria were met with heavy  repression or spiraled into conflict. In contrast, the 2019–2020 pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong mobilized  millions but ultimately failed to prevent the imposition of the National Security Law, which sharply restricted civic  freedoms. Similarly, Sudan’s 2018–2019 protests removed President Omar al-Bashir, though subsequent  instability showed how fragile such gains can be.Together, these cases illustrate that while protests can drive  meaningful political change, their outcomes vary widely depending on state response and structural conditions. In  response, the UN HRC began detailed reports and recommendations. In the 2016 joint report by Special Rapporteurs  emphasized that peaceful assembly is a fundamental right and should be facilitated by states. To further clarify  international obligations, General Comment No. 37 from the HRC clarified the scope of Article 21 of the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), specifically addressing modern concerns like  surveillance, militarized policing, and the use of force during protests.

Current Situation 

The consideration of human rights during large scale protests has been a continuous issue even to this current day.  Recently, with the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 protests in the Occupied Palestinian  Territory, the HRC reaffirmed its commitment to investigating systemic violations during mass demonstrations,  reinforcing the principle that no state action—even under security pretexts—should evade accountability. For  example, between 2023-2024, Peru experienced widespread anti-governmental protests during the impeachment of  the former President Pedro Castillo. The Human Rights Watch reported that police and military forces in Peru  violently cracked down on protests, where security forces opened fire on crowds, used tear gas indiscriminately, and  carried out mass arrests. A least 49 protesters were killed, many from live ammunition, while hundreds more were injured, including bystanders uninvolved in the demonstrations. The documented use of excessive force, including live ammunition, caused injuries to both protesters and bystanders, raising serious concerns about human rights  protections during peaceful political demonstrations. The lack of concrete accountability underscores the persistent challenges in enforcing human rights protections during peaceful political demonstrations. The lack of concrete  accountability underscores the persistent challenges in enforcing human rights protections during peaceful political  demonstrations. 

Similarly, between July 1 and August 15 of 2024, Bangladesh experienced an increased amount of student-led  protests, which were met with severe human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions,  torture, and suppression of free speech. These protests, which began as demands for fair governance, democratic  reforms, and accountability, quickly grew into a nationwide movement involving students, civil society groups, and  opposition supporters. Security forces responded with violent crackdowns, deploying live ammunition, rubber  bullets, and mass arrests to suppress dissent, leaving scores dead and thousands injured. The Office of the High  Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a 2025 fact-finding report that recommends conducting  independent investigations, reforming security laws, and referring relevant human rights violations to the  International Criminal Court (ICC). On February 6, 2025, as part of the same Bangladesh investigation, OHCHR  stressed that the politically motivated violence included gendered abuses, such as women protesters facing threats of sexual violence, as well as violations against children and minority communities, which underscored the multi layered nature of state repression.

In another instance, in July 2023, the OHCHR expressed deep concern over reports that Kenyan police deployed  unnecessary and disproportionate force, including firearms, against anti-government demonstrators, resulting in  dozens of deaths and injuries, and demanded prompt, impartial investigations. Human rights groups documented  the use of live ammunition, tear gas, and arbitrary arrests against both protesters and journalists, raising fears of a  shrinking civic space. Civil society organizations called attention to patterns of excessive policing, including the  targeting of youth activists, which echoed Kenya’s long history of security force abuses during political unrest. This prompted calls for transparent investigations and reaffirmed international obligations to safeguard peaceful  assembly. 

Most recently, on June 26, 2025, the UN’s four anti-torture mechanisms, comprising the Committee against Torture, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, and the Voluntary Fund for Victims  of Torture, issued a joint statement condemning the shrinking civic space and demanding responsible, rights-based  policing of protests, anchored in the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, precaution, and non discrimination. The joint statement reflected growing alarm at the global trend of excessive use of force, arbitrary arrests, and inhumane detention conditions targeting demonstrators. This intervention from the UN’s leading anti torture bodies signals a pressing call to action: without immediate safeguards, fundamental rights to protest and  participate in civic life face unprecedented danger. 

In addition to physical demonstrations, a growing trend of digital repression has transformed the landscape of protest  movements worldwide. Governments in countries such as Iran, Sudan, and India have increasingly relied on  internet shutdowns, targeted social media blackouts, and AI-enabled surveillance technologies to suppress dissent. Advanced surveillance tools, including facial recognition, geolocation tracking, and data scraping from social platforms, have been deployed to identify and intimidate protest leaders, often leading to arbitrary arrests and long term harassment. These tactics shift repression from the streets to the digital sphere, raising urgent questions for  international law: how can the rights to peaceful assembly, privacy, and freedom of expression be safeguarded when governments are weaponizing technology to silence opposition and erase evidence of human rights violations?

Actions Taken by the UN 

A few significant UN documents affirm the right to protest. Article 20 of the UDHR protects “freedom of peaceful  assembly and association.” The ICCPR, passed by the General Assembly on December 16, 1966 and entering into  force on March 23, 1976, expands on the right to assembly in Article 21, stating: “No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a  democratic society…” HRC confirms in General Comment No. 37 (2020) that Article 21 encompasses the rights  of protestors. Other UN organs which have affirmed the right to protest in resolutions or briefs include the UN  Development Programme, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, and the UN International Emergency Children's  Fund.

On October 6, 2010, the OHCHR adopted Resolution 15/32 to establish a special mandate “on the rights to freedom  of peaceful assembly and of association.” It has been consistently renewed, and the most recent call for input – for  the 80th UN General Assembly meeting – concluded on June 16, 2025. The current Special Rapporteur is Ms.  Gina Romero, whose expertise in human rights promotion includes service with the Latin American and Caribbean  Network for Democracy (Executive Director) and the Civil Society Pillar of the Community of Democracies (Secretariat). The mandate publishes country reports, thematic reports, guidelines and general principles. Recent  reports from this mandate have been dire, with Romano “sound[ing] the alarm about the compounding existential  threats” to the rights of protestors, which has been worsened by the “dismantling of global aid.” Fortunately, the  special mandate has developed many comprehensive guidelines for the international community on protecting the  rights of protestors, including “General principles on protecting civic space and the right to access resources,” which refines the right to association into three overarching principles: the right to access resources, the right to foreign  funding, and the right to equitable enforcement of rules. Other key documents expand on particular ways to  implement these principles. For example, due to the nature of their work, lawyers are advised to “productively  undertake…[d]eveloping relationships with assembly organizers and leaders of social movements,” while law  enforcement officials are advised to be more reserved: “Law enforcement officials should openly recognize that  engagement on the part of organizers must be entirely voluntary…Desist from repeat attempts to contact organizers  who have made it clear that they do not wish to engage with law enforcement officials.”

Mandated investigative missions, one of HRC’s core functions, can also concern the right to assembly and the rights of protestors. The Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the eleven  missions which are currently active, concerns the treatment of protestors directly. The mission has found that the  Iranian government has instituted the death penalty for protestors, linking several other human rights violations  including torture, intrusive government surveillance, and deprivation of due process as a specific reaction to the  “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests of 2022. The missions’ work has earned significant international support,  including via one open letter to the HRC, co-signed by 43 non-governmental organizations, which focused  specifically on improving the situation in Iran, urging the committee to renew the mandate. Since this open letter  was signed, the HRC has renewed the mission for one more year, which will expire in 2026 unless the mission is  renewed again. The committee “...calls upon the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to create a safe and  enabling environment for civil society, human rights defenders, journalists and media workers.”

Case Study - May Day 

May 1st, or “May Day,” has been an occasion for union-led, pro-labor demonstrations in France and across the world  for multiple years. May Day originates from the “Haymarket Incident” in May 1886, when Chicago police shot  and killed workers protesting for an eight hour work day. On May 1, 2025, there were over 300,000 participants  across France at the peak of the protests. The 2024 demonstrations contained either 121,000 participants (reported  by the French Interior Ministry) or 200,000 (reported by the French CGT union). The participation in 2023 was  similarly disputed between the Interior Ministry and the union, reporting either 782,000 participants or three times  more, respectively. The 2025 protests were particularly international, with participants in Germany, Greece, Italy,  Japan, the Philippines, Turkey and the United States in addition to France.

For France, the revival of May Day protests in 2023 was sparked by France increasing the national retirement age  from 62 to 64. In 2025, the international protests included opposition from multiple Member States to the  economic policies of the United States. 

The magnitude of the protests has caused police response, notably through the repeated use of tear gas on  demonstrators during the 2023, 2024, and 2025 protests in France. French police have also used batons and a  water cannon to suppress protestors. Covering the 2025 protests, NBC News reported that “The Observatory of  Street Medics, a group aligned with the protesters, said that it observed 200 people injured and performed over 2,000 tear gas decontaminations. It said 30 people were severely injured and had to be evacuated from the protests.” Protestor response also harmed law enforcement personnel: 108 law enforcement personnel were injured in France during the 2023 protests, and 12 were injured during the 2024 protests. The Minister of the Interior of France,  Bruno Retailleau, described targeted violence against the Socialist party by a small group of 2025 May Day  protestors as “absolutely disgraceful and unacceptable.”

During the 2023 May Day protest, 291 demonstrators in France were arrested. Forty-five were arrested in Paris alone during the 2024 protest. In some other Member States, police response to May Day protests was more extreme. For example, the 2024 Turkish May Day protests led to the detainment of more than 200 protestors. Police response also included the use of tear gas and rubber bullets. In 2025, Turkish May Day protestors  participated in defiance of significant restrictions on public gatherings, the restrictions of which Amnesty  International said “are based on entirely spurious security and public order grounds and fly in the face of the 2023  Constitutional Court ruling.” The protestors were subsequently arrested by the hundreds. Reuters captured  photography of one such arrest being made by police members in plain clothes. Organizations such as the Brennan  Center for Justice have raised concern that plain clothed police officers infiltrating protests threatens individual  freedoms.

Conclusion 

Protests have long been a necessary and valuable political tool for collective advocacy. However, the increasing  prevalence of large-scale protests calls for increasing scrutiny by the HRC to protect human rights during protests. The HRC and the UN affirm that freely protesting without reprisal from one’s government is a human right, which  all bodies have a duty to uphold. Unfortunately, HRC has identified several severe violations of human rights in  government response to protest, including torture, intrusive government surveillances, and deprivation of due  process. The recent resurgence of worldwide May Day protests provide a useful case study due to their breadth, scale, and magnitude of government response. In particular, the May Day protests illustrate the important  consideration of police response. The future of May Day protests, and right to protest more generally, will largely  depend on Member States’ actions. 

Committee Directives 

Large-scale protests are critical expressions of citizens’ rights to assembly and free speech, yet many governments  respond with excessive force, arrests, and restrictions that may violate international human rights norms. Despite  existing frameworks like the ICCPR and UN guidelines on peaceful assembly, enforcement remains uneven and  political interests often hinder accountability. Delegates should explore innovative strategies to strengthen  protections for protesters while respecting state sovereignty and public order. You should analyze your Member  States’ records on protest rights and consider how political, social, and security factors shape positions. Consider:  What new measures can the HRC propose to prevent abuses during protests? Why have past efforts failed to stop  excessive use of force? How can the Council support both protesters’ rights and legitimate state concerns about  security? Ultimately, delegates must weigh the potential impacts of their resolutions on human rights protections and  the stability of their Member States.

Annotated Bibliography

Protecting Human Rights During Large Scale Protests

1. Article 19. “The Right to Protest: Principles on the protection of human rights in protests.” Amnesty International Police and Human Rights Resources (2016), accessed August 16, 2025, https://policehumanrightsresources.org/the-right-to-protest-principles-on-the-protection-of-human-rights-in-protests

2. Amnesty International is an international advocacy organization that describes itself as “committed to creating a future where human rights are enjoyed by everyone.” This policy brief emphasizes the importance of protest as a fundamental human right while also recognizing the growing challenges that emerging technologies present to the protection of protesters’ rights. The report translates Amnesty International’s human rights commitments into 20 distinct principles, each supported by sub-principles.

3. These principles outline the freedoms of protesters, including the right to choose the “location...form and manner...content or cause” of their protests. They also describe the obligations of state actors, including the requirement to use only necessary force and to actively protect the rights of protesters. The policy brief specifically calls upon states to “adopt a human rights approach to policing protests.” Delegates can use this resource to better understand how modern protest environments can create new risks for the violation of protesters’ human rights compared to protests in the past.

4. Cohen, Jean L. “Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization.” PoliticalTheory 36, no. 4 (2008): 578–606. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452652.

5. Political Theory is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Sage Publications. This paper contrasts the traditional “moral” conception of human rights with the more contemporary “political” conception of human rights in the context of democracy and sovereignty. The author argues both the moral and political conceptions are needed in a globalizing world. This article is valuable in providing a baseline standard of human rights interpretation in the modern world, but it also briefly considers protest directly. The author invokes the works of Rainer Forst on moral constructivism, citing “protests and struggles against injustice in which concrete demands for justification are associated with the language of rights addressed to one’s domestic polity...” Delegates may find this article useful in helping to understand the differences in interpretation of contemporary human rights, especially insofar as they will be required to consider the nature of increasingly globalized protests.

6. Su, Yen-Pin. “Anti-Government Protests in Democracies: A Test of Institutional Explanations.” Comparative Politics 47, no. 2 (2015): 149–67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43664137.

7. Comparative Politics is a peer-reviewed academic journal. In this article, Su evaluates competing theories about how institutional factors—such as the degree of democratization, economic conditions, and political structures—influence how frequently anti-government protests occur and how widespread they become within democratic states. To conduct this analysis, the author performs a statistical study using data from 107 democratized countries between 1990 and 2004, treating the occurrence of anti-government protests as the dependent variable. The study ultimately concludes that “a large opposition camp is able to encourage more anti-government protests only if it has a higher level of unity.” In addition to the study’s findings, the article’s literature review may be especially valuable to delegates for its clear explanation of institutional political theory and how it relates to patterns of protest.

8. Wood, Lesley J. “Policing Waves of Protest, 1995–2013.” In Crisis and Control: The Militarization of Protest Policing, 25–53. Pluto Press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt183pdpn.6.

9. This chapter examines how policing practices at protests in both the United States and Canada have evolved over time. Wood argues that periods of highly visible and effective protest activity often prompt law enforcement agencies to adapt and develop new strategies in response to challenges to existing social and political norms. In other words, when protest movements successfully disrupt the “status quo,” police institutions respond by innovating their methods of control and management. The author identifies tactics such as “pre-emptive arrests, spatial control tactics..., less-lethal weapons, surveillance, conspiracy charges, and police media campaigns” as examples of these evolving strategies.

Frank Church Model United Nations extends its deepest gratitude to the Southern Regional Model United Nations (SRMUN) for allowing us to use their resources for our conference.