Freedom House Transnational repression does not fall neatly within the existing mandates of working groups and courts that are responsible for monitoring and protecting human rights. As a result, the WGEID, the WGAD, special rapporteurs, and the ECHR cannot provide a comprehensive picture of the problem. In addition to the lack of centralized documentation and awareness, there are geographic disparities. Documentation of transnational repression skews toward host countries in the Global North.105 Numerous factors contribute to this imbalance, one of which is unequal distribution of resources and mechanisms for documentation. Institutions like regional courts, civil society organizations, and independent media generally benefit from better funding and access in Global North countries, positioning them to raise the visibility of cases of transnational repression at international bodies. Consequently, gaps in awareness in these venues are more likely to pertain to Global South countries. Strategic litigation and specialization among civil society groups also affects which cases are submitted for consideration by UN working groups and international courts. Civil society groups often choose exemplary cases of rights violations to put forward, and they are aided in this by a small group of lawyers with expertise on the processes of international review. These factors further limit the number and type of cases that are ultimately documented. Forming an international response Democratic governments need to build a multilateral response to transnational repression at international organizations if they are to check the deterioration of human rights standards that has accompanied the global rise of authoritarianism. The first step is to improve awareness of the problem in and throughout international bodies. The current piecemeal and incidental pattern of documentation does not capture the scale and significance of the threat. Until transnational repression is properly identified and tracked as such wherever it appears, documentation and awareness will remain incomplete. Reports issued by special procedures should recognize transnational repression as a distinct phenomenon and consistently monitor its occurrence. Democratic governments need to build a multilateral response to transnational repression at international organizations. Second, democracies can mount a stronger defense against transnational repression by incorporating it into a broader strategy to counter global authoritarianism. Transnational repression is just one method among many by which authoritarian governments work to eliminate space for dissent and insulate themselves from criticism. Authoritarian cooperation to degrade human rights standards effectively normalizes the unconstrained use of state power and fosters an environment conducive to transnational repression. Governments that oppose transnational repression should form their own partnerships to reinforce liberal, rights-based norms within international organizations. They should support the election of fellow democracies with strong rule-of-law traditions to leadership positions, consistently draw attention to rights violations and condemn perpetrators, and support the expansion and authority of human rights mechanisms. Without a concerted effort to contest authoritarian alignment and influence, the liberal international order could be warped and repurposed as a vehicle for autocratic dominance. freedomhouse.org 25